David->"Hmmm... OK, so that explains it, but I still don't get it... So
the match is going to spit out a scalar but in order to use it you have to
capture it in a list context?"
No, actually the opposite. The match returns a list, but split() was
reading the list as a scalar. Thus:
($fullpath =~ m:/mp3/(.+):)[0]
is element 0 of the list created by evaluating the match. That way what
split sees is a scalar (the element), so it can split it accordingly.
-----Original Message-----
From: David T-G
To: perl beginners
Cc: Timothy Johnson
Sent: 6/9/02 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: shifting solved (was "Re: chomp-ing DOS lines, shifting, and a
variable variable")
Timothy, et al --
....and then Timothy Johnson said...
%
% Ok, I finally got a chance to test it, and the problem with my code is
that
% split expects a scalar as the second argument. This does work:
%
% ($temp) = $fullpath =~ m:/mp3/(.+):;
% @working = split /\//,$temp;
%
% because it is taking the list returned by the match and assigning it
to the
% list with $temp as the only element. If I did this:
Hmmm... OK, so that explains it, but I still don't get it... So the
match is going to spit out a scalar but in order to use it you have to
capture it in a list context?
%
% $temp = $fullpath =~ m:/mp3/(.+):;
% @working = split /\//,$temp;
%
% then @working would be 1 because $temp is evaluating the list in
scalar
% context, which returns the number of elements.
I saw that.
% DISCLAIMER: Someone please correct me if I am not using the
appropriate
% terminology. The upside of what I mean is that if you do a $scalar =
% @array, then the variable $scalar now has the value of the number of
% elements in the array.
Right; that sounds familiar.
%
% Anyhoo, now we know why my suggestion didn't work. What we need to
do, then
% is give split the first element of the list. Try this:
%
% @working = split(/\//,($fullpath =~ m:/mp3/(.+):)[0]);
That works perfectly, but I'm still fuzzy. So we match $fullpath and we
have to put it in () to bind the =~ properly, I suppose, and *that* is
what messes us up when we try to split and so we have to extract a
scalar
from that list, and we do that with [0], right?
I tried {} and [] and nothing and none of them bound the =~ properly, so
it looks like () is the only way to do that. Is there a way to bind
that
won't force a list context?
Thanks a bunch! & TIA & HAND
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's
principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune
cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl
Npg!
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
