Re: Re: Re: Regex Capturing: Is this a bug or a feature?

[Anonymous Monk]

in reply to Re: Re: Regex Capturing: Is this a bug or a feature?
in thread Regex Capturing: Is this a bug or a feature?

Why would you interperate it being scoped to the outer block?

I'd like to change "the outher block" to "an outer (imaginary) block". The outer block I used above isn't written by the coder.

It's declared in the foreach's block

What's declared in that block? Something is declared for the block rather than in it.

I interperate that as the foreach's block as that is the enclosing block in this example.

Effectively that's the same thing as the end of the imaginary block.

I thought it would be clear that everything but your code was "added" by Perl, especially since I wrote my own $DIGIT localizer.

Hope this makes it more clear what I meant.

Cheers,
-Anomo

[shotgunefx]

"Effectively that's the same thing as the end of the imaginary block. "

To be honest, I am confused by this. Doesn't the foreach block constitute it's own scope? I would interpret it like so...

{

  # Your loop:
  foreach my $symbol (@syms){
    local ($1, $2) = ($1, $2); # OK, so you can't actually 
    local $test;
    $symbol=~m/(\w+)\.(\d+)/;
    print "symbol: $symbol\t\$1: $1\t\$2:$2\n";
    print "test is ",$test++,"\n";
    my ($ts,$te) = ($1,$2);
  }
}

which is what I'd expect from local() scoping. I understand it's the regex engine so I don't have a problem with it not working the same way. I do think the documentation is very confusing and reminds me of my $x if 0 "feature"

-Lee

"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

[Anonymous Monk]

Sigh. Yes, the foreach block constitues its own scope. I'm trying to write code that simulates what Perl does for you. Let me repeat what I said earlier. There's nothing declared in the block. Something is declared for the block. And the way to do that manually is by adding an outer block and do something before you enter the other block. Otherwise you'd do the thing on each iteration of the block, and that's not what you want.

You have to let go of the idea that perl puts a local() in your block.

-Anomo

[shotgunefx]

If local() doesn't work that way, why does this example localize every time through the block?

When in doubt, parse it out. ;)

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use vars qw ($PackageVar);

use B::Deparse;
my $deparse = B::Deparse->new("-p", "-sC");
my $body = $deparse->coderef2text(\&ltest);
print $body;

##########################
sub ltest { 
    $PackageVar = 0;
    for(1..10){
        local $PackageVar = 0;
        print ++$PackageVar,"\n";
    }

}

__END__
# Says B:Deparse
{
    ($PackageVar = 0);
    foreach $_ (1 .. 10) {
        (local $PackageVar = 0);
        print((++$PackageVar), "\n");
    }
}



-Lee

"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

[krusty]

I'd like to change "the outher block" to "an outer (imaginary) block". The outer block I used above isn't written by the coder.

Seems a funky way to state it, but what I think you're getting at is that if a local variable isn't declared within any existing block, then it will treat the current file as a block.

While it is true that the compilation unit itself (as in file or eval statement) can be the scope of a my'd (lexical) or local (dynamic) variable, that's not what's going on here.

What's declared in that block? Something is declared for the block rather than in it.

The first opening curly brace to the closing curly brace of a "for" loop is a block. Same thing with "foreach"... (for/foreach are synonyms)

foreach $element @array {#code}

Perfectly valid block...

Finally, what's wrong with this: local ($1, $2) = ($1, $2); # OK, so you can't actually write this.
Try it... It works.
What you can't do is this:

$1 = 50;

With warnings turned on you'll get something along the lines of a "modification of read-only value at line x". Update: Forget the warnings thing... $1 = 50; is a flat out compilation error

[Anonymous Monk]

what I think you're getting at is that if a local variable isn't declared within any existing block, then it will treat the current file as a block.

That's not my point at all. Reread what I've written and see my other replies in this thread.

The first opening curly brace to the closing curly brace of a "for" loop is a block.

Yes, so you have to put the stuff that should be declared for it outside it, otherwise it will be declared in it, and that would be wrong, because what wouldn't declare something for the whole block.

As for the local ($1, $2) = ($1, $2); issue: Yes, is "works", but it doesn't do what you want. Try this: 'a' =~ /(.)/; local $1 = 'b'; print $1. It prints 'a' and not 'b'. Experiment some with Devel::Peek and you'll see why doing "local $1 = $1" doesn't do what you want.

-Anomo