Re: RegExp equivalencies

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Jay wrote: > Most free put an add at the bottom, too. Yes. A terse, easy to ignore one. This is reasonable. Multi-paragraph legalese is not reasonable. > What annoys me are the crazy disclaimers. But they are corporate > policy in a lot of places, and it's crazy to thin

RE: RegExp equivalencies

Jay wrote: > just for this list. Let's face it, this isn't about spam: this is > about violating some people's sesibility regarding a completely > arbitrary customary 4-line sig limit developed in a completely > different forum (usenet) 20 years ago when (80 x 4 = 320) b

Re: RegExp equivalencies

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:15:10 -0500 (EST), Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Michael Kraus wrote: > > > Yes, I've noticed. Unfortunately if I leave off my .sig (as I did in > > the original message of this thread), the mail server decides to > > append an even longer si

RE: RegExp equivalencies

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Michael Kraus wrote: > Yes, I've noticed. Unfortunately if I leave off my .sig (as I did in > the original message of this thread), the mail server decides to > append an even longer signature to my email messages. :( > > Sorry, it's my company's policy - and I'm tired of t

RE: RegExp equivalencies

2005 6:10 PM > To: 'beginners@perl.org' > Cc: Michael Kraus > Subject: RE: RegExp equivalencies > > Michael Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > > Is: > > > > my ($id) = $item =~ /_(\d+)$/; > > > > Equivalent to: > > > >

RE: RegExp equivalencies

> > Wild Technology Pty Ltd , ABN 98 091 470 692 Sales - Ground > [...] > > And that'll really make you popular around here ;-) Yes, I've noticed. Unfortunately if I leave off my .sig (as I did in the original message of this thread), the mail server decides to append an even longer signature t

RE: RegExp equivalencies

Michael Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > Is: > > my ($id) = $item =~ /_(\d+)$/; > > Equivalent to: > > $item =~ /_(\d+)$/; > $id = $1; Yes. It's especially useful when you've got more than one capture in your RE. > Wild Technology Pty Ltd , ABN 98 091 470 692 Sales - Ground [...] And that

Re: RegExp equivalencies

Michael Kraus [MK], on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 15:44 (+1100) typed the following: MK> $item =~ /_(\d+)$/; MK> $id = $1; you could write this into one-line: ($id = $item) =~ s/.*_(\d+)$/$1/; -- ...m8s, cu l8r, Brano. [" " - [cloaked tagline]] -- To un

Re: RegExp equivalencies

Michael Kraus wrote: G'day... Hello, Is: my ($id) = $item =~ /_(\d+)$/; Equivalent to: $item =~ /_(\d+)$/; $id = $1; No. In the first example my() creates a new variable $id and the result of the list returned from "$item =~ /_(\d+)$/" is assigned to it or an empty list (undef) if the pattern did