[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ton Hospel) writes:
> In article <a9iae8$pcc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ton Hospel) writes:
>> In article <a9i5mg$mb5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ton Hospel) writes:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Mtv Europe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> I'm sorry for flooding.
>>>>
>>>>>> -p @$=a..z;pop@$ while@$>3&&!/@$[-4..-1]/x;$_ x=@$>3
>>>>> that's better -
>>>>> -p @$=a..z;pop@$ until@$<4||/@$[-4..-1]/x;$_ x=@$>3
>>>>
>>>> -p @$=a..z;1until/@$[-4..-1]/x|!--$#$;$_ x=@$>3
>>> Near the end it's going to match anyways, so you can do:
>>> -p @z=a..z;$#z--until/@z[-4..-1]/x;$_ x=@z>3
>> Rereading the originall august 2000 thread leads to:
>> -p $_ x=/[a-w](??{($a=$&)++;$a++.$a++.$a})/
>> (I'm not sorry for flooding)
> Oh, that's obviously not optimal (we'll assume no 1 in the input)
> -p $_ x=/.(??{join"",($&..z,1)[1..3]})/
What a shame that this doesn't work.
-p $_ x=/.(??{($&..z,1)[1..3]})/x
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
