Re^4: Regex question - identify which pattern comes first

[harangzsolt33]

No, the second solution did not work. But the first one does work, and I never thought of doing it that way even though I knew you could capture using the parentheses. I didn't know you can use defined to figure out which one of the patterns was captured. The second solution, I think, requires a more modern Perl interpreter. I use Perl 5.8 mostly. It said unmatched regex --> / something... But it's okay. I'll use the first solution. I think, it's also easier to read.

[LanX]

No the feature was already present in 5.8

5.8.0/perlre#(?{ code })

I have another (simpler?) solution in mind which was probably only introduced with 5.10+

Update

yep!

[harangzsolt33]

Hmm... Yes, it does work! I just had to put another closing parentheses in the regex.

use strict;
use warnings;
$| = 1;

my $SAMPLE = 'AB ABDA DCACCB AAA BSAA CAAB ACS ABA DBA BA DASSABACA A'
+;

local our $first;

$SAMPLE =~ m/
    (?: BA[ABC]{2} (?{ $first = 1; }) |
        CA[CD]{2}  (?{ $first = 2; }) |
        DA[SC]{2}  (?{ $first = 3; })
    ) /x;

print $first;

And I did a test. This second version runs almost twice as fast as the first one. Very interesting... :-)

Edit: Sorry, I don't want to change the subject but can't help it. lol I did another test on isNumber() which looks like this:

sub isNumber
{
  defined $_[0] or return 0;
  my $N = 1;
  local $SIG{__WARN__} = sub { $N = 0; };
  return ($_[0] & 0) | $N;
}

and it turns out that a simple regex test on a string to see if it's a number runs orders of magnitude faster than using the above method of trying to catch a warning...

[LanX]

> local our

Not sure why this is needed, at least my Perl version 5.38 had no issues using my

[Anonymous Monk]

> Sorry, I don't want to change the subject but can't help it.

Best a new thread with full benchmark. Too much guessing needed...

And consider

use Scalar::Util qw(looks_like_number);