in reply to Request to correct the perl code for getting substrings

Hi, I don't know why you are assigning first to an array, like so:
@d = “CCATGNNNTAACCNNATGNNTAGCC”;
(this assigns the scalar value "CCATG..." to $d[0]) just to flatten it later like so:
my $string ="@d";
There are a couple of other things in your code which are unclear to me. That said, the essential bits might be done this way:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w my $string = "CCATGNNNTAACCNNATGNNTAGCC"; while($string =~ /[AG]TG.*?[AG][AG]/g) { print "matched at ", pos($string) - length($&), ": ", $&, "\n"; }
Notes: I hope I understood your problem statement correctly; I'm a bit confused by your sample code, though.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Request to correct the perl code for getting substrings
by jwkrahn (Abbot) on Apr 19, 2012 at 22:17 UTC

    Don't use $&, it will slow down every regular expression in the program.

    my $string = "CCATGNNNTAACCNNATGNNTAGCC"; while ( $string =~ /([AG]TG.*?T[AG][AG])/ig ) { print "matched at $-[0]: $1\n"; }
      Don't use $&, it will slow down every regular expression in the program
      You're quite right, Sir ;-)
      #!/usr/bin/perl -w use Benchmark; my $string = "CCATGNNNTAACCNNATGNNTAGCC" x 10000; timethese(10, { 'matchamp' => sub {matchamp($string)}, 'matchpar' => sub {matchpar($string)}, }); sub matchamp { my $string = shift; my $matchlen = 0; while($string =~ /[AG]TG.*?[AG][AG]/g) { $matchlen += length($&); # Actually reference $& to keep Perl from + cheating } return $matchlen; } sub matchpar { my $string = shift; my $matchlen = 0; while ( $string =~ /([AG]TG.*?T[AG][AG])/g ) { $matchlen += length($1); # Reference $1, for fairness } return $matchlen; }
      yields:
      Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of matchamp, matchpar... matchamp: 24 wallclock secs (23.48 usr + 0.00 sys = 23.48 CPU) @ 0 +.43/s (n=10) matchpar: 26 wallclock secs (25.70 usr + 0.00 sys = 25.70 CPU) @ 0 +.39/s (n=10)

      The "$&" leg seems a tad faster, right?

      BUT...

      removing every trace of matchamp in the above program yields:

      Benchmark: timing 10 iterations of matchpar... matchpar: 1 wallclock secs ( 0.54 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.54 CPU) @ 18 +.52/s (n=10)

      That's a speedup by a factor ~26. I'm impressed.

      Thanks for pointing that out