in reply to Re^3: substring selection from a string on certain qualifying conditions
in thread substring selection from a string on certain qualifying conditions

Your addition of unrequested functionality — removal of sequences found in other sequences in the string — is what prompted my question. There was no unstated rule. Your implication that the OP did something was uncalled for and wrong.

  • Comment on Re^4: substring selection from a string on certain qualifying conditions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: substring selection from a string on certain qualifying conditions
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 09, 2010 at 05:05 UTC

    Update: The post above, in its entirety, originally read:

    Your addition of unrequested functionality is what prompted my question. There was no unstated rule.

    And was silently modified after the fact, without notification, in typically unhanded, duplicitous, and utterly dishonourable fashion. Presumably an attempt to try and save face.

    Sorry, but the OPs own code would remove all duplicates sequences found, regardless of where they were found. 

    my %uniq=();
my $string = 'ACRMGAHKMAHGTXX';

      substr($string, $_, 10 ) =~ m[([AGTC].{0,8}[AGTC])]
      and ++$uniq{ $1 }
      for 0 .. length( $string )-1;

for my $key (keys %uniq){
    print $key, "\n";
}

    [download]

    In the absence of any specific discussion, the OPs code is the spec. You opened that discussion, and I up-voted you for doing so, but there is no mention of that requirement in the OPs post. Neither in the stated "conditions", nor the worked examples.

    A requirement, not discussed is "unstated".

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]

      Sorry, but the OPs own code would remove all duplicates sequences found, regardless of where they were found.

      No it doesn't. Output: 

      AXXA
AXXAXXA

      [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

        Those are not duplicates; "would", not does!

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom