Re: Using closures for regex control

: Would something like these DWIM? : : # match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match: : / pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } / Yes So a match in a closure starts where the outer match was. Simple enough. Will: # match pat1 _ pat2 _ pat3 and capture pat2 match: / pat1 { ($foo) = /

Re: Using closures for regex control

Me writes: : : Would something like these DWIM? : : : : # match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match: : : / pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } / : : Yes : : So a match in a closure starts where the outer match : was. Simple enough. : : Will: : : # match pat1 _ pat2 _ pat3 and capture

Re: Using closures for regex control

Me writes: : [modified repost due to warnock's dilemma] : : Would something like these DWIM? : : # match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match: : / pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } / Yes, though I think we'll see people doing it more like this: / pat1 ( pat2 ) { $foo = $-1 } / We might

Using closures for regex control

Larry said: I haven't decided yet whether matches embedded in [a regex embedded] closure should automatically pick up where the outer match is, or whether there should be some explicit match op to mean that, much like \G only better. I'm thinking when the current topic is a match state, we