This does happen to solve my specific example, but...
...that split only works because "you know" what the repeating
pattern is. While it does not explicitly repeat the original regex,
that split does the job only because the repeating pattern does
not include blanks. Don't look at the *specific* pattern that I
am repeating, but try to imagine *any* repeating pattern at
that point in the example. Right now, can we come up with a
solution where I can replace that pattern with *anything* I want
to repeat, and the solution still works?
Right now what ruby does is it only saves the *last* copy of
however many things it matched. It does seem to me that it
should save *all* copies of what it matched -- somewhere.
For instance, let's say that Matchdata included another
method called "repeated", and that method returns an array.
This array has the same number of elements as captures
does. If the pattern-segment for captures[0] is NOT a repeating
pattern, then repeated[0] returns nil. If captures[1] is tied to a
pattern-segment that does (possibly) repeat, then repeated[1]
returns an array of strings, one element for each time that
pattern-segment was found.
Eg:
/^(copy|duplicate) \s+ (\w+\s+)+ (before|after) \s+ (\w+\s*)+ $/x
used to match against the string:
"copy apple pear plum peach after bill bob'
$~.captures[0] == "copy"
$~.repeated[0] == nil
$~.captures[1] == "peach "
$~.repeated[1] == {"apple ", "pear ", "plum ", "peach "}
$~.captures[2] == "after"
$~.repeated[2] == nil
$~.captures[3] == "bob"
$~.repeated[3] == {"bill ", "bob"}
Note that I wouldn't even need to add the extra '()' around
'(\w+\s+)+' if ruby provided something like this.
Of course, the next question is why not just make captures[1]
be the array of "things" which were repeatedly matched, instead
of only holding the last-instance of that repeated pattern. That
would work fine, IMO, although I guess it might break the scripts
of some people.
ยทยทยท
On 12/15/05, William James <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote:
Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> ... Then, after I know the line is valid, I want
> the array of source-words, and the array of destination-words
> which were matched. I want to do that by picking out information
> in Matchdata, not by doing a new scan. [...]
> I could put another set of parenthesis around the two repeating
> groups:
>
> /^(copy|duplicate) \s+ ((\w+\s+)+) (before|after) \s+ ((\w+\s*)+) $/x
>
> But that doesn't really give me two separate arrays of the
> individual values that made up each group. It just matches
> each group as a whole.
>
> Given two data lines of:
> copy apple pear plum peach after bill bob
> duplicate tomato before joe alice alfred tommy jane
>
> in the first case I want a way to set two arrays:
> srcfood = ["apple ", "pear ", "plum ", "peach "]
> destword = ["bill ", "bob"]
> from the first line, and
> srcfood = ["tomato "]
> destword = ["joe ", "alice", "alfred ", "tommy ", "jane"]
> from the second line.
>
> I'll agree this is a weird example, but I think it shows the issue.
> If I apply the above pattern to the first line, I'll see a Matchdata
> result where:
>
> $~.captures ==
> ["copy", "apple pear plum peach ", "peach ", "after", "bill bob", "bob"]DATA.each {|line| line.chomp!
md =
/^(?:copy|duplicate) \s+
((?:\w+\s+)+)
(?:after|before) \s+
((?:\w+\s*)+) $
/x.match( line )
p md.captures
src_food = md.captures.first.split
dest_word = md.captures.last.split
p src_food, dest_word
}
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosihn@gmail.com
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA