On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 02:40:52PM -0700, John W. Krahn wrote:
>
> s[([&<>]|(?<=\\)$rx)][$rep{$1}]go;
>
John, this doesn't work.
My representative line is:
\ldblquote \rdblquote & < > \par
My code is:
my %rep = qw(
& &
> >
Paul Tremblay wrote at Sun, 28 Jul 2002 03:38:56 +0200:
> I don't understand this syntax:
>
>
>> s[([&<>]|(?<=\\)$rx)][$rep{$1}]go;
> ^^^
>
> Is that another way of telling the regex that you don't want to save the value?
It a zero-width positive look-behind assertion.
It says
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 02:40:52PM -0700, John W. Krahn wrote:
>
> I thought '<' and '/>' were already in the hash values? If so, wouldn't
> this work?
>
> s[([&<>]|(?<=\\)$rx)][$rep{$1}]go;
>
>
>
I don't understand this syntax:
> s[([&<>]|(?<=\\)$rx)][$rep{$1}]go;
^^^
On Jul 27, John W. Krahn said:
>> No, $1 is either "&" or undef. Perhaps you want:
>>
>> s[([&<>])|\\($rx)][<$rep{$+}/>]go;
>>
>> That $+ means "the last () that matched". But that still replaces & with
>> <&/>. So you'd need to make the '<' and '/>' part of the %rep hash's
>> values. I wou
Jeff 'Japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, Paul Tremblay said:
>
> >The only problem is how I should replace "&", ">", and "<". I think I'll
> >do single line subs for this text. Even with huge files it shouldn't
> >take more than 1/2 a second or so, and that allows me to use your
> >original met
On Jul 27, Paul Tremblay said:
>The only problem is how I should replace "&", ">", and "<". I think I'll
>do single line subs for this text. Even with huge files it shouldn't
>take more than 1/2 a second or so, and that allows me to use your
>original method to speed things up.
>
>Or this just oc
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 11:23:59AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>
> That's because my method requires creating a hash each time. If you were
> to take that out of the function, it would run faster.
Right. This makes perfect sense.
I followed your advice and put the hash outside of the su
On Jul 27, Paul Tremblay said:
>I ran a benchmark on your method, and it actually proved slower. I ran a
>test line 10,000 times. Directly substituting each line took 38 wall
>seconds. Using your method took 60.
That's because my method requires creating a hash each time. If you were
to take th
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 02:02:54PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
Jeff:
I ran a benchmark on your method, and it actually proved slower. I ran a
test line 10,000 times. Directly substituting each line took 38 wall
seconds. Using your method took 60.
I included my test below, in case I made
On Jul 26, Paul Tremblay said:
>Is there a quicker way to substitute an item in a line than reading the
>line in each time?
>
>I am writing a script to convert RTF to XML. One part of the script
>involves simple substitution, like this:
>
>s/\\ldblquote //g;
>s/\\rdblquote //g;
>s/\\emdash //g;
>
Paul Tremblay wrote at Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:55:46 +0200:
> Is there a quicker way to substitute an item in a line than reading the line in each
>time?
>
> I am writing a script to convert RTF to XML. One part of the script involves simple
>substitution,
> like this:
>
> s/\\ldblquote //g;
> s/
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 02:02:54PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>
> It's best to come up with a hash of strings and replacements:
>
> my %rep = qw(
> ldblquote rt_quote
> rdblquote lt_quote
> emdashem_dash
> rquoter_quote
> tab tab
> lquote
12 matches
Mail list logo
