Re: find element in array, then advance to next element

Looks more a job for a regular expression than walking an array:

my $ports = $args =~ m/-p\s+([-\d]+)/;
[download]

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Comment on Re: find element in array, then advance to next element Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: find element in array, then advance to next element by kathys39 (Acolyte) on Dec 09, 2008 at 19:01 UTC
CountZero - tried this and get a return of "1" for my ports. What'd I'd really like is to grab all values (in my example above, 1-1024), then I'll split from there.	[reply]
Re^3: find element in array, then advance to next element by almut (Canon) on Dec 09, 2008 at 19:16 UTC
You need list context to assign the capture(s) — note the parentheses around `$ports`: `my ($ports) = $args =~ m/-p\s+([-\d]+)/;` [download] Otherwise (in scalar context), you'd get whether the regex matched (thus the 1).	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: find element in array, then advance to next element by kathys39 (Acolyte) on Dec 09, 2008 at 19:19 UTC
that's it - so sorry I missed that. Works perfectly - thanks so much!	[reply]
Re^4: find element in array, then advance to next element by CountZero (Bishop) on Dec 09, 2008 at 20:24 UTC
Of course! Note to self: only try to answer questions on a computer which has Perl installed so you can test what you write. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply]