Re^3: More efficient way to truncate long strings of the same character

It's not necessary.

>perl -e"$_='a'; print qr/$_{3}/"
(?-xism:a{3})
[download]

And beyond being unnecessary, it will never help either. If you were to do ${_}{...} to prevent $_{...} from beint treated as a hash element, it still wouldn't do what you want. See Re: Of scalars, hashes, quantifiers, and regexen.

Comment on Re^3: More efficient way to truncate long strings of the same character Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: More efficient way to truncate long strings of the same character by GrandFather (Saint) on Oct 31, 2008 at 00:00 UTC
So when I run: `use strict; use warnings; my ($ikegamiRe1) = map qr/$_/, join '\|', map "(?<=$_{3})$_+", map quot +emeta, 1 .. 9;` [download] I should ignore: Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at noname.pl + line 4. [download] Update: Oh, and here's an interesting result: `use strict; #use warnings; my $str = join '\|', map "(?<=${_}{3})$_+", 1 .. 2; print $str, "\n"; $str = join '\|', map "(?<=$_{3})$_+", 1 .. 2; print $str;` [download] Prints: `(?<=1{3})1+\|(?<=2{3})2+ (?<=)1+\|(?<=)2+` [download] Perl reduces RSI - it saves typing	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: More efficient way to truncate long strings of the same character by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 31, 2008 at 00:05 UTC
Oh shoot, that's a string literal and not a regexp literal! Fixed.	[reply]