Re: A silly reg exp question

A couple of ways (all untested):

s/([1-8])/"-" x $1/eg;

s/1/-/g, s/2/--/g, s/3/---/g, s/4/----/g, s/5/-----/g, s/6/------/g, s
+/7/-------/g, s/8/--------/g;

my @x = map {"-" x $_} 0..8;
s/([1-8])/$x[$1]/g;

1 while s/([2-8])/-@{[$1-1]}/g; s/1/-/g;

s/8/7-/g; s/7/33-/g; s/6/5-/g; s/5/22-/g; s/4/3-/g; s/3/11-/g; s/2/1-/
+g; s/1/-/g;
[download]

Comment on Re: A silly reg exp question Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: A silly reg exp question by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jan 16, 2012 at 20:42 UTC
`s/8/7-/g; s/7/33-/g; s/6/5-/g; s/5/22-/g; s/4/3-/g; s/3/11-/g; s/2/1-/ +g; s/1/-/g;` [download] This version certainly seems to work, but is it lazy, crazy, peevish, peccant, or...? I think it's the version I would choose if I hated the person who would be maintaining my code! Update: ++ for the whole reply for diversity and perversity!	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: A silly reg exp question by JavaFan (Canon) on Jan 16, 2012 at 20:58 UTC
Feel free to replace the semicolons (except the last) with xors for even more perversity.	[reply]
Re^4: A silly reg exp question by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jan 17, 2012 at 01:05 UTC
++ and amen, but only with `no warnings 'void';` since one cannot enjoy perversity incautiously. In fact, wouldn't any of the left-associative operators `* x + - . << >> & \| ^ , => xor` do as well so long as precedence levels were not mixed unwisely? Although I haven't thoroughly tested it, I like: `>perl -wMstrict -le "$_ = 'p1r4k/8'; my $t = 'p-r----k/--------'; no warnings 'void'; s/8/7-/g-+s/7/33-/g-+s/6/5-/g-+s/5/22-/g-+s/4/3-/g-+s/3/11-/g-+s/2/1- +/g-+s/1/-/g; print qq{'$_'}; print $_ eq $t; " 'p-r----k/--------' 1` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: A silly reg exp question by chessgui (Scribe) on Jan 16, 2012 at 14:48 UTC
s/1/-/g, s/2/--/g, s/3/---/g, s/4/----/g, s/5/-----/g, s/6/------/g, s/7/-------/g, s/8/--------/g; This is the exact way I have done it :). When you are lazy you end up with code like this. To be sure: this works.	[reply]