In my instance, the 0+ solution would not produce the results I desire. For example, imagine the input string is "0000000.00" as in a dollar amount. The result I desire is "0.00", while the 0+ method results in "0". The regex that Joe provided produced my desired result, while the 0+ maybe useful for other things.
Dirk Bremer - Systems Programmer II - ESS/AMS - NISC St. Peters 636-922-9158 ext. 652 fax 636-447-4471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.nisc.cc ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:36 Subject: RE: Zero-suppression Regex > As Michael G Schwern over on the Fun With Perl group said: > > Folks, I'm clawing my eyes out here. Stop hitting the regex crack > pipe! > > Although he was specifically talking about printf vs a regex for zero > padding numbers, the principle still applies. Perl has an incredibly > efficient "convert number-like text into a proper number" function. It works > implicitly every time you use a numerical operator on a scalar. The regex > tool is comparatively slow and an all-purpose, robust solution is > non-trivial. > > Why not just use 0+$_ and let perl work its magic. I challenge any of you > regex "pushers" out there to write a regex that beats this in either speed > or elegance. > > BTW Joe's solution s/^-?0+(?=\d)// will fail for negative numbers. I would > post a fix but I appear to be on my high horse at the moment :-) _______________________________________________ Perl-Win32-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
