Re^3: "Not containing something" in substitution

Yes. The (??{ }) construct is evaluated at match time if and only when the engine reaches that point.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^3: "Not containing something" in substitution

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^3: "Not containing something" in substitution by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2003 at 22:00 UTC
Right. I was thinking of the `(?>..)` example that only matches upto two deep. `m{ \( ( [^()]+ # x+ \| \( [^()]* \) )+ \) }x` [download] Examine what is said, not who speaks. "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re^3: "Not containing something" in substitution
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2003 at 22:00 UTC

Right. I was thinking of the (?>..) example that only matches upto two deep.

    m{ \(
          (
            [^()]+              # x+
          |
            \( [^()]* \)
          )+
       \)
     }x
[download]

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller
If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]