Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re: regex issue

by AnomalousMonk (Bishop)
on Aug 03, 2016 at 19:03 UTC ( #1169095=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to regex issue

First of all, I don't understand if you want all three-letter immediately repeated words, as your OPed regex
    /\b(\w\w\w)\s\g1\b/;/
implies, or all three-letter words that are repeated anywhere else in the string, as your code implies.

In the spirit of the second interpretation (and counting them) (requires Perl version 5.10+ for  \g-1 construct):

c:\@Work\Perl>perl -wMstrict -MData::Dump -le "use 5.010; ;; my $term = 'Dit is het eerste het is xhetx xhet hetx niet het laatste + Dit'; ;; my $word = qr{ \b \w{3} \b }xms; ;; my %repeats; while ($term =~ m{ ($word) (?= .*? (?= $word) \g-1) }xmsg) { $repeats{$1}++; } ;; dd \%repeats; " { Dit => 1, het => 2 }
Change the definition of  $word to whatever best suits your requirements. | See Update 3 below.

Updates:

  1. Added info about 5.10+ requirement.
  2. BTW, the "regex"  /\b(\w\w\w)\s\g1\b/;/ doesn't actually compile. It looks like it might be a piece of something else, e.g., a substitution:
        s/\b(\w\w\w)\s\g1\b/;/
    (update: or maybe the / at the end is completely extraneous and the statement  /\b(\w\w\w)\s\g1\b/; was intended — that would work)
  3. When I wrote "Change the definition of  $word to whatever best suits your requirements" above, what I had in mind was that any  $word definition used in the context of the
        m{ ($word) (?= .*? (?= $word) \g-1) }xmsg
    match would be assured to match repeated words per my understanding of the OP. Not so, and it's easy to manufacture a counterexample. Of course, it's also easy to fix the counterexample to avoid the problem, but the fix requires knowledge of internal details of the  $word definition, and this is exactly what I was trying to avoid. In a further iteration, I can come up with a match regex that seems to fulfill all my (admittedly rather arbitrary) requirements, but it's not well tested and I don't really love it as I should. So as always, Caveat Programmor.


Give a man a fish:  <%-{-{-{-<

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: regex issue
by TomDLux (Vicar) on Aug 03, 2016 at 19:43 UTC
    Why are you using ';;' every blank line? If you want a blank line, leave a blank line. If you want a comment, use the perl comment character, '#'.

    As Occam said: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

      What you're seeing is a  perl -e " ... code ... " Windose command line padded out with spaces to emulate the appearance of multi-line source. The code comes from the Windoze clipboard. The original intent was to quickly cut/paste, possibly modify, and test posted code snippets, so I decided to eliminate blank lines. If I want to have something that looks like a blank line, "something" has to be there, and by convention, I use  ;; as that something.

      By the same token, because what's after the  -e switch is just a single string/line, any  # comment-to-end-of-line just clobbers the entire remainder of the line, even though the remainder appears multi-line. So, no comments.


      Give a man a fish:  <%-{-{-{-<

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1169095]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (4)
As of 2019-12-06 05:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Strict and warnings: which comes first?



    Results (154 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?