Re: getting $1, $2 etc. in evaled regexp
Allan,
I'm pretty sure you don't have to go through the eval to do what you're
trying to do. Can't you just build the regex straight like that, with
the $str?
if ($line =~ /$str/)
{...}
or am I just imagining things because it's 3:30 in the morning?
- M
On Tuesday, Feb 25, 2003, at 03:03 America/New_York, allan juul wrote:
hi
perl question
eh, is not possible to get the values in parens when you do a reg
match on an
evaled string ?
consider the snippt below, how do i get the values into $1, $2 etc ...
my $str = /(.{11})(.{10})/i;
my $line = "test string etc etc test string";
if ($line =~ eval("/" . $str . "/")) {
print "id = $1\n";
print "pw = $2\n";
}
thanks
./allan
-
"Thus nature has no love for solitude, and always leans, as it were, on
some support; and the sweetest support is found in the most intimate
friendship." - Cicero
Re: konfabulator -- something to ponder
Careful, neither is Konfabulator. On Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003, at 22:28 America/New_York, Joel Rees wrote: Shux, I just wish this had been Perl... So, is this konfabulator thingy going to have some advantage over, say, Tk with Perl? (Or RealBASIC, or Borland's Java gadget, except that those are not free?) -- Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - "Thus nature has no love for solitude, and always leans, as it were, on some support; and the sweetest support is found in the most intimate friendship." - Cicero http://radio.weblogs.com/0108194/
Humble Pie (or: A call for help)
Morning everyone. I've severely botched up my perl install(s?) on OS-X. I have some vague recollections of discussions on where to "really" install 5.8, how to get the expat libraries installed, since the CPAN module didn't quite accommodate the install path weirdness involved. Anyway, what I'm left with is a godawful mess. I haven't touched it in the last month so even my memory is fading out. What's the best way to proceed? I'm guessing I almost certainly need to flush one if not both install attempts and start from scratch. Anyone got a "resurrecting your perl install on OS X" cheat sheet? :-p - Panicked - "Thus nature has no love for solitude, and always leans, as it were, on some support; and the sweetest support is found in the most intimate friendship." - Cicero http://radio.weblogs.com/0108194/
Re: OS Poll
See I didn't know the numbers that well. Nice to know I wasn't just imagining it :-) "deeply integrated" was really just a flippant turn of phrase. I'm a recent switcher, so it may simply be that my familiarity has increased. On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:03 AM, Les Harris wrote: > on 9/23/02 8:43 PM, Bill Stephenson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>> From: "Michael P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with >>> GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. > >> >> What does that do for us? > > Due to various improved compile time code optimizations executable code > generated by GCC 3.1 tends to be about 6 percent faster on average > than code > generated by the 2.95 branch. GCC 3.1 also features a much faster > preprocessor which makes compiling faster if you are a developer. > > A few Obj-C improvements include things like fixed linker warnings, > certain > @protocal definitions will work properly, and perhaps the largest > improvement: the classlookup code in the runtime library has been > rewritten > providing faster performance. > > There are some caveats to this as some things that will compile in > 2.95x > have a few more problems with 3.1. Also, previously compiled > libraries (or > programs even, perhaps) already installed on your system might have to > be > recompiled if you upgrade to Jaguar. > >>> As a developer I'm quite happy to >>> have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I >>> kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a >>> big >>> deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it >>> worth the $$$. IMNSHO >> >> What exactly is "under the hood" that makes it worth the $$$. Is it >> faster? >> More stable? > > Things are generally faster. I am unsure how the developer tools are > more > deeply integrated in Jaguar than in previous versions however. > > Les Harris >
Re: OS Poll
Kinda depends on who "us" is. If "us" is "me" it means "we" have a much more stable, mature, closer to state of the art, well-supported development environment. If "us" is Joe mac user on the street who plays a couple games, uses an office suite, browses the web and farts around with MIDI a bit then I don't think I'd recommend the outlay. Personally I think the stability, speed increase, and feature set are noticeable. But that may be because I'm looking for them. But I don't really care enough to evangelize (sp?). On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:43 PM, Bill Stephenson wrote: > >> From: "Michael P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with >> GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. > > > What does that do for us? > >> As a developer I'm quite happy to >> have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I >> kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a >> big >> deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it >> worth the $$$. IMNSHO > > What exactly is "under the hood" that makes it worth the $$$. Is it > faster? > More stable? > > I don't mean to be sarcastic, I'd really like to know before I pony up > the > $$$. > > I know that Apple has one of the greatest "Hype and Spin" departments > of any > large company, shoot, they practically wrote the book on how to hype > tech > products. I want more than hype for my money. > -- > > Bill Stephenson > www.SecureShopper.com > 1-417-546-5593 > >
Re: OS Poll
I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. As a developer I'm quite happy to have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a big deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it worth the $$$. IMNSHO - M On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 09:19 PM, Ken Williams wrote: > Just when I thought I'd sworn off this thread... > > On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:39 PM, Gregory Cranz wrote: >> I RESENT the fact that I just paid for 10.1 & now I have to pay the >> full price all over again for a system that I haven't owned for two >> years yet. Both 'major improvements' were speed related - which >> screams to me that OS/X was "beta-released" as non-optimized code. >> As a software developer I find that distasteful - as a consumer the >> fact that I have to pay money to have debugging scaffolding removed >> from a production release - or whatever optimizations were required - >> just to be told that I have to do it AGAIN at FULL PRICE - completely >> unacceptable. > > So, if they should have done that in the first version of OS X, would > you have been willing to wait until June 2002 for it? > > Anyway, if you're a software developer you should know that there are > *lots* of ways to increase speed of a project. One is to remove > debugging code, which simply couldn't explain the purported difference > between 10.1.5 and 10.2. One is to find little sections of your code > that are taking a long time and try to optimize them, which maybe can > explain some of it. But by most accounts the majority of the speedups > came from genuine new development, for instance creating new > interfaces between things like graphics accelerators and pieces of the > OS. > > It's quite inaccurate to insinuate that the difference between 10.1.5 > and 10.2 is just the removal of "debugging scaffolding." > > -Ken >
