Re: Re: Re: Shorten script

[sauoq]

In general, it's more efficient to elevate the "ors" out of the pattern. In other words,

$line =~ /pat1/ or $line =~ /pat2/

is usually better than a single more complex regular expression.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

[snax]

Well, yes, but he did say he was trying to shorten his script :)

I am often a chooser of elegance (subjective, of course) over efficiency.

So, to combine some efficiency with some elegance:

while($line = <F>) {
    for my $hit ($line =~ /matchPattern/gi) {
        $ct++;
        push @files, $name;
        print "PAGE ->\t$name\ndata ->";

        if( $line =~ /(patternOne)/i or $line =~ /(patternTwo)/i ) {
            print "\t\t$1\nMATCHED - >\t$hit\n";
        } 
        else {
            print " TEXT INFO HERE.\n";
        }        
    }   
}

The $1 will be properly remembered -- although if a line matches both patterns is the or a short circuit operator? You might have to switch the order to keep the behavior identical.

[sauoq]

is the or a short circuit operator?

Yes. That code should work fine.

Now, if you take the final step and incorporate a ternary operator in the print statement, you'll have reproduced BrowserUk's version. :-)

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

[snax]

True, but I do so hate the ternary operator :)

Well, that's not precisely true. With "complex" tests and returns I find it obfuscates the logic a bit (to my eye) -- truly a personal aesthetics issue.

What I do like about BrowserUk's version is the use of $_; I should have noticed that right away. I'm slipping as work and hobby has kept me away from perl for too long. It's good to be back in the saddle again....