Re: This regexp made simpler

Not extensively tested, but does

my @strings = ('AZ', 'A SOMETHING Z', 'ASOMETHINGZ', 'A  Z', 'A ZZ', '
+AA ZZ', 'AAZZ');

for (@strings) {
    if (/A( .*?)?Z/) {
        my $grabbed = $1 // '';
        say "'$_' grabbed '$grabbed'";
    }
    else { say "'$_' did not match" }
}
__END__
'AZ' grabbed ''
'A SOMETHING Z' grabbed ' SOMETHING '
'ASOMETHINGZ' did not match
'A  Z' grabbed '  '
'A ZZ' grabbed ' '
'AA ZZ' grabbed ' '
'AAZZ' grabbed ''
[download]

do what you want?

Update

What should 'A ZZ', 'AAZZ' and 'AA ZZ' match? (added these as test cases)

Unless I state otherwise, all my code runs with strict and warnings

Comment on Re: This regexp made simpler Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: This regexp made simpler by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Apr 25, 2010 at 11:14 UTC
Contrary to my interpretation of the requirements of the OP, both your regex and the updated regex of rovf's OP allow a 'Z' between the first 'A' and the final 'Z', and also still need to have an undefined `$1` rationalized to an empty string.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: This regexp made simpler by rovf (Priest) on Apr 25, 2010 at 11:19 UTC
What should 'A ZZ', 'AAZZ' and 'AA ZZ' match? (added these as test cases) They would (and should) not match at all... -- Ronald Fischer <ynnor@mm.st>	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: This regexp made simpler by FunkyMonk (Bishop) on Apr 25, 2010 at 11:31 UTC
Updating my post to accommodate the anchors and your update: `my @strings = ('AZ', 'A SOMETHING Z', 'ASOMETHINGZ', 'A Z', 'A ZZ', ' +AA ZZ', 'AAZZ', 'A Z'); for (@strings) { if (/^A( [^Z]*)?Z$/) { my $grabbed = $1 // ''; say "'$_' grabbed '$grabbed'"; } else { say "'$_' did not match" } } __END__ 'AZ' grabbed '' 'A SOMETHING Z' grabbed ' SOMETHING ' 'ASOMETHINGZ' did not match 'A Z' grabbed ' ' 'A ZZ' did not match 'AA ZZ' did not match 'AAZZ' did not match 'A Z' grabbed ' '` [download] Unless I state otherwise, all my code runs with strict and warnings	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: This regexp made simpler by FunkyMonk (Bishop) on Apr 25, 2010 at 11:23 UTC
I should have taken more notice of the anchors in your OP :(	[reply]