Re^2: Is there a more functional regex syntax?

Or, as an improvement in the regex, /^(?=(\d+))(?:\d+-)?(\d+)$/, so that both $1 and $2 are always defined. So, as 1 line,

$totals[$_] += ($range =~ /^(?=(\d+))(?:\d+-)?(\d+)$/)[$_] for 0,1;
[download]

Or more simply, if you want to keep the variables separate,

  $total_min += ($range =~ /^(\d+)/)[0];
  $total_max += ($range =~ /(\d+)$/)[0];
[download]

#11929 First ask yourself `How would I do this without a computer?' Then have the computer do it the same way.

Comment on Re^2: Is there a more functional regex syntax? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Is there a more functional regex syntax? by smls (Friar) on Sep 18, 2012 at 17:14 UTC
Thank, this is what I've been looking for! It's not extremely pretty, but it should scale nicely for the general case of needing the result of a regex string extraction as a right-hand-side value. PS: The regex suggested by tobyink above can make the single-line case much more readable: `/(\d+)/g`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Is there a more functional regex syntax? by kennethk (Abbot) on Sep 18, 2012 at 17:35 UTC
The regex suggested by tobyink above can make the single-line case much more readable The advantage of mine is that it actually enforces format, which may or may not be of concern. I also like that you expect two values and you get two values; a little less slight of hand for maintenance. But I do appreciate the elegance of his choice of indices. Also be aware you'll need to initialize `@totals = (0,0)` so that the index `-1` doesn't map to your first term. tobyink does it, but didn't really emphasize its importance. #11929 First ask yourself `How would I do this without a computer?' Then have the computer do it the same way.	[reply] [d/l] [select]