From jobs-noreply at seattleperl.org Wed Aug 5 08:27:43 2009 From: jobs-noreply at seattleperl.org (SPUG Jobs) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SPUG: JOB: 6 month contract, developer, Redmond Message-ID: Location: Redmond, WA Onsite at client site, 40hrs normal work week Develops software programs of a complex nature, including operating systems, applications and/or network products for external use. Develops project plans, functional specifications and schedules for these products. Designs and performs analysis on complex programs and systems. Assists in determining product requirements and enhancements. 4 plus years work related experience required. Strong communication skills required. Require advanced knowledge of Perl and database programming language and/or development tools. Strong skills in multiple areas such as Perl, SQL Server 2008, C/C++, C#. Bachelor's degree in Engineering, Computer Science or related technical field required. Master's degree is preferred and may substitute for a portion of the related experience. **Local candidates only eligible to work on a W2 basis ** Not open for Corp-Corp or 1099 arrangements** Please contact Jana Smith at JanaSmith at Comsys.com or 425-372-5162 From cjac at colliertech.org Wed Aug 5 09:19:14 2009 From: cjac at colliertech.org (C.J. Adams-Collier) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:19:14 -0700 Subject: SPUG: JOB: 6 month contract, developer, Redmond In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1249489154.5456.54.camel@norseth> What's the pay rate for this? On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 08:27 -0700, SPUG Jobs wrote: > Location: Redmond, WA > > Onsite at client site, 40hrs normal work week > > Develops software programs of a complex nature, including operating > systems, applications and/or network products for external use. Develops > project plans, functional specifications and schedules for these > products. Designs and performs analysis on complex programs and systems. > Assists in determining product requirements and enhancements. > > 4 plus years work related experience required. Strong communication > skills required. Require advanced knowledge of Perl and database > programming language and/or development tools. Strong skills in multiple > areas such as Perl, SQL Server 2008, C/C++, C#. Bachelor's degree in > Engineering, Computer Science or related technical field required. > Master's degree is preferred and may substitute for a portion of the > related experience. > > **Local candidates only eligible to work on a W2 basis > ** Not open for Corp-Corp or 1099 arrangements** > > Please contact Jana Smith at JanaSmith at Comsys.com or 425-372-5162 > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From protsman at mac.com Wed Aug 5 22:31:09 2009 From: protsman at mac.com (Shawn Protsman) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:31:09 -0700 Subject: SPUG: cpanplus error sending reports Message-ID: I thought I'd ask here before posting this one of the many perl lists. After quite a few various modules using cpanplus I get errors like this: [ERROR] Could not send 'pass' report for 'IPC-Run-0.84': Test::Reporter: error from 'Test::Reporter::Transport::Net::SMTP:' Unable to connect to any MX's: at /opt/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/ 5.10.0/Test/Reporter/Transport/Net/SMTP.pm line 168. [ERROR] Failed to send test report for 'IPC::Run' Can anyone point me to instructions on getting set up so that I can send my report[s]? Thanks, Shawn From andrew at sweger.net Fri Aug 7 13:15:53 2009 From: andrew at sweger.net (Andrew Sweger) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SPUG: PostgreSQL Conference comes to Seattle Message-ID: I know this isn't exactly Perl, but I know there's strong synergy between Perl and PostgreSQL. I'm passing along this announcement for Joshua D. Drake: Submit here: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ The event this year is being held at Seattle Central Community College from October 16th through 18th. The move to Seattle opens up a larger metropolitan area for continuing to expose databases users, developers, and administrators to the World's Most Advanced Open Source Database. Following previously successful West Coast conferences, we will be hosting a series of 3-4 hour tutorials, 90 minute mini-tutorials, and 45 minute talks. This year we will be continuing our trend of covering the entire PostgreSQL ecosystem. We would like to see talks and tutorials on the following topics: General PostgreSQL: Administration * Performance * High Availability * Migration * GIS * Integration * Solutions and White Papers The Stack: Python/Django/Pylons/TurboGears/Custom * Perl5/Catalyst/Bricolage * Potato * Ruby/Rails * Java (PLJava would be great)/Groovy/Grails * Operating System optimization (Linux/FBSD/Solaris/Windows) * Solutions and White Papers If you are using PostgreSQL as your platform, you need to be presenting at this conference! You may submit your paper here: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ -- Andrew B. Sweger -- The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once. From andrew at sweger.net Tue Aug 18 13:42:50 2009 From: andrew at sweger.net (Andrew Sweger) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SPUG: August SPUG meeting Message-ID: Sorry. I failed to secure a speaker for this month. Add to that, all of my personal sites where I get my email were down for 10+ days (until just last night) due to deesslitis and lousy sysadmin service. I think August is historically our least popular month for SPUG gatherings. But September is coming real soon now. Would anyone like to show off what they've been working on (playing with)? It's so easy even a php "programmer" can do it. Let me hear from you. -- Andrew B. Sweger -- The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once. From MichaelRWolf at att.net Tue Aug 18 12:04:19 2009 From: MichaelRWolf at att.net (Michael R. Wolf) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:04:19 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex Message-ID: Question: What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to fail against all input? Motivation: I'm creating a lab for perl classes. I want to provide the stub of a script that compiles, but always fails to match. Unfortunately, the obvious minimal RE of // matches *everything*. Here's a stub of the lab... # TODO... replace the following line with your regular expression to match zip codes. my $zip_re = qr//; like('98107', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip'), like('07748', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip with leading zero'), unlike('1234', $zip_re, 'Four digits'); unlike('123456', $zip_re, 'Six digits'); -- Michael R. Wolf All mammals learn by playing! MichaelRWolf at att.net From damian at conway.org Tue Aug 18 22:37:53 2009 From: damian at conway.org (Damian Conway) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:37:53 +0200 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> > What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to fail against > all input? /(?!)/ "Look ahead and *don't* find...nothing". Oops! Too late. You already found nothing. ;-) Damian From jjuran at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 21:58:44 2009 From: jjuran at gmail.com (Joshua Juran) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:58:44 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Michael R. Wolf wrote: > Question: > What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to > fail against all input? > > Motivation: > I'm creating a lab for perl classes. I want to provide the stub of > a script that compiles, but always fails to match. Unfortunately, > the obvious minimal RE of // matches *everything*. I don't know the syntax of the top off my head, but here's the logic: * beginning of string (not strictly necessary, but a useful optimization) * negative lookahead assertion for X * X Josh From ssandv at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 22:33:57 2009 From: ssandv at gmail.com (Steve Sandvik) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:33:57 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> well, /$^/ seems like a plausible starting point. Or ending point. Or something. :-) Steve Sandvik On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Michael R. Wolf wrote: > Question: > What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to fail against > all input? > > Motivation: > I'm creating a lab for perl classes. ?I want to provide the stub of a script > that compiles, but always fails to match. ?Unfortunately, the obvious > minimal RE of // matches *everything*. > > Here's a stub of the lab... > > # TODO... replace the following line with your regular expression to match > zip codes. > my $zip_re = qr//; > > like('98107', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip'), > like('07748', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip with leading zero'), > > unlike('1234', ? ? ? ? ?$zip_re, 'Four digits'); > unlike('123456', ? ? ? ?$zip_re, 'Six digits'); > > -- > Michael R. Wolf > ? ?All mammals learn by playing! > ? ? ? ?MichaelRWolf at att.net > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > ? ?POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > ? MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > ? WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > From tcaine at amazon.com Tue Aug 18 22:47:23 2009 From: tcaine at amazon.com (Caine, Todd) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:47:23 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: /^\b$/ > -----Original Message----- > From: spug-list-bounces+tcaine=amazon.com at pm.org [mailto:spug-list- > bounces+tcaine=amazon.com at pm.org] On Behalf Of Michael R. Wolf > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:04 PM > To: spug-list at pm.org > Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex > > Question: > What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to fail > against all input? > > Motivation: > I'm creating a lab for perl classes. I want to provide the stub of a > script that compiles, but always fails to match. Unfortunately, the > obvious minimal RE of // matches *everything*. > > Here's a stub of the lab... > > # TODO... replace the following line with your regular expression to > match zip codes. > my $zip_re = qr//; > > like('98107', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip'), > like('07748', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip with leading zero'), > > unlike('1234', $zip_re, 'Four digits'); > unlike('123456', $zip_re, 'Six digits'); > > -- > Michael R. Wolf > All mammals learn by playing! > MichaelRWolf at att.net > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ From ingy at ingy.net Wed Aug 19 00:34:59 2009 From: ingy at ingy.net (Ingy dot Net) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:34:59 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> References: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9eb4914f0908190034p398c9e21y78109f64efd18470@mail.gmail.com> I can't resist the urge to out golf the Damian. I can't find any input that matches: /.^/ Then again maybe my smaller submission fails to be comprehensible. I can't seem to grok it myself, but I'm sure Damian can. :) Ingy PS If you look at /.^/ at the proper angle, in the proper light, under the influence of the proper drugs, it kinda looks like an emoticon of a certain Aussie I know... :P On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Damian Conway wrote: > > What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to fail > against > > all input? > > /(?!)/ > > "Look ahead and *don't* find...nothing". > Oops! Too late. You already found nothing. ;-) > > Damian > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ingy at ingy.net Wed Aug 19 00:38:32 2009 From: ingy at ingy.net (Ingy dot Net) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:38:32 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Sandvik wrote: > well, /$^/ seems like a plausible starting point. Or ending point. > Or something. :-) Nope. $^ = ""; $anything =~ /$^/; > > > Steve Sandvik > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Michael R. Wolf > wrote: > > Question: > > What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to fail > against > > all input? > > > > Motivation: > > I'm creating a lab for perl classes. I want to provide the stub of a > script > > that compiles, but always fails to match. Unfortunately, the obvious > > minimal RE of // matches *everything*. > > > > Here's a stub of the lab... > > > > # TODO... replace the following line with your regular expression to > match > > zip codes. > > my $zip_re = qr//; > > > > like('98107', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip'), > > like('07748', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip with leading zero'), > > > > unlike('1234', $zip_re, 'Four digits'); > > unlike('123456', $zip_re, 'Six digits'); > > > > -- > > Michael R. Wolf > > All mammals learn by playing! > > MichaelRWolf at att.net > > > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From damian at conway.org Wed Aug 19 00:51:36 2009 From: damian at conway.org (Damian Conway) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:51:36 +0200 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <9eb4914f0908190034p398c9e21y78109f64efd18470@mail.gmail.com> References: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190034p398c9e21y78109f64efd18470@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <832f158a0908190051m3b5ca210qb26dd9bfbc2c310f@mail.gmail.com> Ingy shot an eagle on the ninth: > ??? /.^/ > > Then again maybe my smaller submission fails to be comprehensible. I can't > seem to grok it myself, but I'm sure Damian can. :) I'm sure you *can* grok it. It's very straightforward: match (almost) any single character, then be at the start of the string. A clear and obvious paradox, and hence unmatchable. > PS If you look at?? /.^/?? at the proper angle, in the proper light, under > the influence of the proper drugs, it kinda looks like an emoticon of a > certain Aussie I know... :P "Oi! Who you calling Big Nose???" ;-) Damian From tallpeak at hotmail.com Wed Aug 19 01:08:58 2009 From: tallpeak at hotmail.com (Aaron West) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:08:58 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <832f158a0908190051m3b5ca210qb26dd9bfbc2c310f@mail.gmail.com> References: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190034p398c9e21y78109f64efd18470@mail.gmail.com> <832f158a0908190051m3b5ca210qb26dd9bfbc2c310f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I was starting to think of something like this, but assumed (wrongly) that ^ would only mean start of string, at start of regex. Oops... -----Original Message----- .. Ingy shot an eagle on the ninth: > ??? /.^/ > > Then again maybe my smaller submission fails to be comprehensible. I can't > seem to grok it myself, but I'm sure Damian can. :) I'm sure you *can* grok it. It's very straightforward: match (almost) any single character, then be at the start of the string. A clear and obvious paradox, and hence unmatchable. From ingy at ingy.net Wed Aug 19 01:11:11 2009 From: ingy at ingy.net (Ingy dot Net) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:11:11 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <832f158a0908190051m3b5ca210qb26dd9bfbc2c310f@mail.gmail.com> References: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190034p398c9e21y78109f64efd18470@mail.gmail.com> <832f158a0908190051m3b5ca210qb26dd9bfbc2c310f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9eb4914f0908190111u1344d704m1b85d380f88ac0ab@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Damian Conway wrote: > > PS If you look at /.^/ at the proper angle, in the proper light, > under > > the influence of the proper drugs, it kinda looks like an emoticon of a > > certain Aussie I know... :P > > > "Oi! Who you calling Big Nose???" > ADAMK, of course! ;) > > ;-) > > Damian > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MichaelRWolf at att.net Wed Aug 19 07:03:50 2009 From: MichaelRWolf at att.net (Michael R. Wolf) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:03:50 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <409816D8-4983-44DD-8545-4470D9C765EE@att.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Patrick Michaud wrote: > How about /[^\w\W]/ ? It's a bit long, but requiring a match on a > character that is not a word character and not a non-word character > seems to do it. Thanks... It's got the distinct advantage of being comprehensible by introductory students. -- Michael R. Wolf All mammals learn by playing! MichaelRWolf at att.net From MichaelRWolf at att.net Wed Aug 19 07:07:34 2009 From: MichaelRWolf at att.net (Michael R. Wolf) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:07:34 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> References: <832f158a0908182237p75974d87g2242077e86f9648a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Damian Conway wrote: >> What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to >> fail against >> all input? > > /(?!)/ > > "Look ahead and *don't* find...nothing". > Oops! Too late. You already found nothing. ;-) > > Damian Clever. I figured I could count on a former-professor to pass the 'always fail' test... -- Michael R. Wolf All mammals learn by playing! MichaelRWolf at att.net From MichaelRWolf at att.net Wed Aug 19 07:08:29 2009 From: MichaelRWolf at att.net (Michael R. Wolf) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:08:29 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1928D9EB-1A7B-4369-B628-63515BDA49AB@att.net> On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Caine, Todd wrote: > /^\b$/ Nice... Thanks.. -- Michael R. Wolf All mammals learn by playing! MichaelRWolf at att.net From derykus at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 12:28:41 2009 From: derykus at gmail.com (Charles DeRykus) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:28:41 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <175825720908191228u75955d03v448e504feaa93992@mail.gmail.com> But wait... if you buy now, we'll throw in an extra $ to make it work :) /$$^/ -- Charles DeRykus On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Ingy dot Net wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Sandvik wrote: > >> well, /$^/ seems like a plausible starting point. Or ending point. >> Or something. :-) > > > Nope. > > $^ = ""; > $anything =~ /$^/; > > > >> >> >> Steve Sandvik >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Michael R. Wolf >> wrote: >> > Question: >> > What's the smallest (comprehensible) regex that's guaranteed to fail >> against >> > all input? >> > >> > Motivation: >> > I'm creating a lab for perl classes. I want to provide the stub of a >> script >> > that compiles, but always fails to match. Unfortunately, the obvious >> > minimal RE of // matches *everything*. >> > >> > Here's a stub of the lab... >> > >> > # TODO... replace the following line with your regular expression to >> match >> > zip codes. >> > my $zip_re = qr//; >> > >> > like('98107', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip'), >> > like('07748', $zip_re, 'Simple 5-digit zip with leading zero'), >> > >> > unlike('1234', $zip_re, 'Four digits'); >> > unlike('123456', $zip_re, 'Six digits'); >> > >> > -- >> > Michael R. Wolf >> > All mammals learn by playing! >> > MichaelRWolf at att.net >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _____________________________________________________________ >> > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List >> > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org >> > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list >> > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays >> > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ >> > >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List >> POST TO: spug-list at pm.org >> SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list >> MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays >> WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ >> > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MichaelRWolf at att.net Fri Aug 21 23:12:37 2009 From: MichaelRWolf at att.net (Michael R. Wolf) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:12:37 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <844439FC-D93A-4945-82E3-A50DBF62A4F2@att.net> On Aug 19, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Ingy dot Net wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Sandvik > wrote: > well, /$^/ seems like a plausible starting point. Or ending point. > Or something. :-) > > Nope. > > $^ = ""; > $anything =~ /$^/; I'm missing your point. If you mean to indicate that interpolation happens inside m//, and that $^ is an internal perlvar (with $FORMAT_TOP_NAME as a 'use English' equivalent), then it is *not* an empty string. Here's the one-liner to show that... $ perl -le 'print $^' STDOUT_TOP $ But, perhaps I missed your intent. -- Michael R. Wolf All mammals learn by playing! MichaelRWolf at att.net From MichaelRWolf at att.net Fri Aug 21 23:47:38 2009 From: MichaelRWolf at att.net (Michael R. Wolf) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:47:38 -0700 Subject: SPUG: When is a caret just a caret? And what about dollar? Message-ID: <3E1FFC9E-DA66-4018-89A5-A47E020C4F2A@att.net> I seem to remember that the meaning of caret in a regex is context- sensitive, and it can be an anchor, a complement, or just (with apologies to Sigmond) a caret. My memory is that caret is an anchor iff it's the first character in a regex and a complement iff it's the first character in a character class, else it's a self-match. Ergo, /^^[^^]^/ would match "beginning of line then caret then anything-but-a-caret then caret". I can't seem to find support for this (long-held) belief. Have I been wrong for this long? And while I'm at it, how 'bout dollar? I thought it was an anchor iff it was the last character in the regex, else it introduced a scalar variable for interpolation. It seems that the documentation says that caret and dollar are *always* metacharacters. Any ideas how I could have been mislead by a (seemingly) similar set of rules that I may have misinterpreted? Has their meaning changed in previous versions of Perl (or the Perl regex engine)? -- Michael R. Wolf All mammals learn by playing! MichaelRWolf at att.net From MichaelRWolf at att.net Fri Aug 21 23:54:44 2009 From: MichaelRWolf at att.net (Michael R. Wolf) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:54:44 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <1f7343100908212333m567cc1f9n32f6df94d09a7d49@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> <844439FC-D93A-4945-82E3-A50DBF62A4F2@att.net> <1f7343100908212333m567cc1f9n32f6df94d09a7d49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <65401057-6331-4863-9046-D49EEF59A0DD@att.net> On Aug 21, 2009, at 11:33 PM, Steve Sandvik wrote: [...] > obscure perlvar, I just happened to > get one by accident I think /\Z\A/ (or qr( \Z \A )x without the LTS (leaning toothpick syndrome)) hits what you were aiming at without accidently stumbling into a perlvar that Ingy noticed. -- Michael R. Wolf All mammals learn by playing! MichaelRWolf at att.net From derykus at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 05:01:52 2009 From: derykus at gmail.com (Charles DeRykus) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:01:52 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <844439FC-D93A-4945-82E3-A50DBF62A4F2@att.net> References: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> <844439FC-D93A-4945-82E3-A50DBF62A4F2@att.net> Message-ID: <175825720908220501j65ab2725pd72ce2a7dd5d7780@mail.gmail.com> But, $^ is assignable and, if set to the empty string, invalidates /$^/ as a regex that won't match anything: perl -wle '$^=''"; print "match" if "foo" =~/$^/' match -- Charles DeRykus On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Michael R. Wolf wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Ingy dot Net wrote: > > >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Sandvik wrote: >> well, /$^/ seems like a plausible starting point. Or ending point. >> Or something. :-) >> >> Nope. >> >> $^ = ""; >> $anything =~ /$^/; >> > > > I'm missing your point. > > If you mean to indicate that interpolation happens inside m//, and that $^ > is an internal perlvar (with $FORMAT_TOP_NAME as a 'use English' > equivalent), then it is *not* an empty string. Here's the one-liner to show > that... > > $ perl -le 'print $^' > STDOUT_TOP > $ > > But, perhaps I missed your intent. > > -- > Michael R. Wolf > All mammals learn by playing! > MichaelRWolf at att.net > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From derykus at gmail.com Sat Aug 22 05:26:38 2009 From: derykus at gmail.com (Charles DeRykus) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:26:38 -0700 Subject: SPUG: When is a caret just a caret? And what about dollar? In-Reply-To: <3E1FFC9E-DA66-4018-89A5-A47E020C4F2A@att.net> References: <3E1FFC9E-DA66-4018-89A5-A47E020C4F2A@att.net> Message-ID: <175825720908220526r7b526aedod1f7e871f0a3f9c5@mail.gmail.com> No, caret needs backwhacking to be a self-match: perl -wle "use re 'debug'; /^^/" Compiling REx "^^" Final program: 1: BOL (2) 2: BOL (3) .... perl -wle "use re 'debug'; /^\^/" Compiling REx "^\^" Final program: 1: BOL (2) 2: EXACT <^> (4) .... -- Charles DeRykus On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Michael R. Wolf wrote: > I seem to remember that the meaning of caret in a regex is > context-sensitive, and it can be an anchor, a complement, or just (with > apologies to Sigmond) a caret. > > My memory is that . Ergo, /^^[^^]^/ would match "beginning of line then > caret then anything-but-a-caret then caret". I can't seem to find support > for this (long-held) belief. Have I been wrong for this long? > > And while I'm at it, how 'bout dollar? I thought it was an anchor iff it > was the last character in the regex, else it introduced a scalar variable > for interpolation. > > It seems that the documentation says that caret and dollar are *always* > metacharacters. Any ideas how I could have been mislead by a (seemingly) > similar set of rules that I may have misinterpreted? Has their meaning > changed in previous versions of Perl (or the Perl regex engine)? > > > > -- > Michael R. Wolf > All mammals learn by playing! > MichaelRWolf at att.net > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ssandv at gmail.com Fri Aug 21 23:33:27 2009 From: ssandv at gmail.com (Steve Sandvik) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:33:27 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <844439FC-D93A-4945-82E3-A50DBF62A4F2@att.net> References: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> <844439FC-D93A-4945-82E3-A50DBF62A4F2@att.net> Message-ID: <1f7343100908212333m567cc1f9n32f6df94d09a7d49@mail.gmail.com> Heh. $^ isn't a regex and therefore doesn't fill your spec anyway. So if you assign "" to it (one = is assignment, even on Friday, as I proved to myself repeatedly today...), it matches *anything*. Sure, that's probably bad form--but that isn't the point. At that point I could just as well have used any other obscure perlvar, I just happened to get one by accident while trying to get a regex that was short, understandable, and contradictory by its nature when it was a bit late for me to be thinking regexly. I hit it out of bounds. And Ingy noticed before I could kick it back onto the fairway. :-) At least, that's what Ingy's reply sounded like from here. Steve On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Michael R. Wolf wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Ingy dot Net wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Steve Sandvik wrote: >> well, /$^/ seems like a plausible starting point. ?Or ending point. >> Or something. :-) >> >> Nope. >> >> ? ?$^ = ""; >> ? ?$anything =~ /$^/; > > > I'm missing your point. > > If you mean to indicate that interpolation happens inside m//, and that $^ > is an internal perlvar (with $FORMAT_TOP_NAME as a 'use English' > equivalent), then it is *not* an empty string. ?Here's the one-liner to show > that... > > $ perl -le 'print $^' > STDOUT_TOP > $ > > But, perhaps I missed your intent. > > -- > Michael R. Wolf > ? ?All mammals learn by playing! > ? ? ? ?MichaelRWolf at att.net > > > > > From k_clarke at perlprogrammer.net Sun Aug 23 12:13:47 2009 From: k_clarke at perlprogrammer.net (Ken Clarke) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:13:47 -0300 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex References: Message-ID: <974D32C87174482A92E79EEAF2908618@kens> Late to the party but I love regexes. Patrick's /[^\w\W]/ made me think of /[\d\D]/ or /[\s\S]/ or any character class containing complementary subsets My own invention is /^^/ or /$$/ or any match which can only occur once occuring twice Still, my vote goes to Ingy's /.^/ because not only does it use the least characters (at least I havn't seen any single character candidate), but it also uses the least ink :) >> Ken From ingy at ingy.net Sun Aug 23 12:44:11 2009 From: ingy at ingy.net (Ingy dot Net) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:44:11 -0700 Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <974D32C87174482A92E79EEAF2908618@kens> References: <974D32C87174482A92E79EEAF2908618@kens> Message-ID: <9eb4914f0908231244g3cdc932dvde73a030dc63b1e4@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ken Clarke wrote: > Late to the party but I love regexes. > > Patrick's /[^\w\W]/ made me think of /[\d\D]/ or /[\s\S]/ or any character > class containing complementary subsets > > My own invention is /^^/ or /$$/ or any match which can only occur once > occuring twice > Neither of these works for the intended purpose. /^^/ always matches, which stands to reason, since after you match the front, you're still at the front. $$ is an interpolated scalar variable. print "match" if $$ =~ /$$/; # prints "match" Also, even though $$ is readonly, I could easily use Inline::C or some XS code to allow me to do this: $$ = ""; $anything =~ /$$/; > > Still, my vote goes to Ingy's /.^/ because not only does it use the least > characters (at least I havn't seen any single character candidate), but it > also uses the least ink :) > > Ken >>> >> > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sthoenna at efn.org Mon Aug 24 00:10:38 2009 From: sthoenna at efn.org (Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SPUG: minimal unmatching regex In-Reply-To: <65401057-6331-4863-9046-D49EEF59A0DD@att.net> References: <1f7343100908182233q622e1359ma088b69f6438fd15@mail.gmail.com> <9eb4914f0908190038x20c1d049kfcd0bb831d94c142@mail.gmail.com> <844439FC-D93A-4945-82E3-A50DBF62A4F2@att.net> <1f7343100908212333m567cc1f9n32f6df94d09a7d49@mail.gmail.com> <65401057-6331-4863-9046-D49EEF59A0DD@att.net> Message-ID: <54711.97.113.92.102.1251097838.squirrel@webmail.efn.org> On Fri, August 21, 2009 11:54 pm, Michael R. Wolf wrote: > I think /\Z\A/ (or qr( \Z \A )x without the LTS (leaning toothpick > syndrome)) hits what you were aiming at without accidently stumbling into a > perlvar that Ingy noticed. /\Z\A/ should match an empty string, though. If it doesn't, it's a bug. /\b\B/ would work, though not necessarily efficiently for very large strings. I can't remember if the (long deprecated, eventually removed) evil $* could make /.^/ match. Prior to 5.10, /(?!)/ was the canonical answer, IMO. With 5.10, that has changed to /(*FAIL)/. From nuestrodinero.info at gmail.com Tue Aug 25 22:33:28 2009 From: nuestrodinero.info at gmail.com (Norberto Demiz) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:33:28 -0700 Subject: SPUG: August SPUG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89b7e0180908252233i28eabdfbqd8a04ac7a399f037@mail.gmail.com> What is this "php" you talk about? :-) On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Sweger wrote: > Sorry. I failed to secure a speaker for this month. Add to that, all of my > personal sites where I get my email were down for 10+ days (until just > last night) due to deesslitis and lousy sysadmin service. > > I think August is historically our least popular month for SPUG > gatherings. But September is coming real soon now. Would anyone like to > show off what they've been working on (playing with)? It's so easy even a > php "programmer" can do it. Let me hear from you. > > -- > Andrew B. Sweger -- The great thing about multitasking is that several > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?things can go wrong at once. > > _____________________________________________________________ > Seattle Perl Users Group Mailing List > ? ? POST TO: spug-list at pm.org > SUBSCRIPTION: http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/spug-list > ? ?MEETINGS: 3rd Tuesdays > ? ?WEB PAGE: http://seattleperl.org/ >