Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
It's not easy to understand what your question is, that's why you get fuzzy answers.
> I guess that perl tried to interpret $1[ as element of an array @1? yes
abccba > So I solved this problem in two ways, using ... Excellent you even solved it, so what is the question again? :) Your title $1[ is - sorry - really crap, please see How do I compose an effective node title? for inspiration. And your question is obscured in between lots of regex line noise, please see How do I post a question effectively?
Now the gory details ...you said in one of your replies > which looks to me as a bug. nope, but IMHO it's ...
... flawed by concept:Normally an identifier in Perl has to match something like /[_a-zA-Z^][_a-zA-Z0-9]*/ but special variables like $\ or $1 are exceptions (see perlvar#SPECIAL-VARIABLES for a list) They are global symbols and don't need to be declared. Unfortunately this covers other possible slots of such a symbol, like %hash, @array, $scalar, &code, *glob and probably also filehandle and format.... (see perlmod#Symbol-Tables and perlref#Making-References point 7 for details) For instance %\ doesn't have any meaning, but since $\ is a special variable, it is
I'd rather prefer that undefined special vars fail under strict, alas, we are talking about a language which supported this concept already in Perl4, i.e. long before it introduced lexicals and strict.
Not a bugSince this /$array[/ is a parsing error and since 1 is not less a symbol than array it's not a bug. This is normally not a problem, but regex' tend to become messy.
Cheers Rolf
In reply to Re: $1[ (or "Does an array @1 exist in Perl ? - Yes!")
by LanX
|
|