Sean,
To follow up on what Brian said, you can also do the same thing
on a single line with named captures
https://docs.raku.org/language/regexes#Named_captures
(This often isn't as good as Brian's method, since breaking things
up as Brian showed often helps readability. But it can be a good
o
Hi Brian,
I would think this would become pretty easy. Consider:
sub MAIN ( $replacement, :$x, :$y ) {
my regex x {<{ $x }> }
my regex y { <{$y}> }
S:g! ! <{ $replacemement }> ! if $x;
S:g! ! <{ $replacement }> ! if $y
}
Is this what you are looking for or did I miss something?
> > > ...
> > > "y" ~~ /(x)|(y)/
I would probably take advantage of the composability of Raku
regexes, and do something like
my regex x { x }
my regex y { y }
and then use
/ | /
and check for $ or $
> > S:g[(x)|(y)] = $0 ?? x-replacement !! y-replacement
e.g. this becomes
S:g[|] = $
Raku removed all of the regex cruft that has accumulated over the years.
(Much of that cruft was added by Perl.)
I'm not going to respond to the first part of your email, as I think it is
an implementation artifact.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:06 PM Sean McAfee wrote:
> Hello--
>
> I stumbled acr
Hello--
I stumbled across a couple of bits of surprising regex behavior today.
First, consider:
S:g[ x { say 1 } ] = say 2 given "xx"
I expected this to print 1, 2, 1, 2, but it prints 1, 1, 2, 2. So it looks
like, in a global substitution like this, Raku doesn't look for successive
matches an
