The following code returns "Bareword found where operator expected at (eval 1) line 1, near "*,out" (Missing operator before out?)"
$val = 0;
$name = "abc";
$myStr = '$val = ($name =~ in.*,out [)';
eval($myStr);
As per my understanding, I can resolve this issue by wrapping "in.*,out [" block with '//'s.
But that "in.*,out [" can be varied. (eg: user inputs). and users may miss giving '//'s. therefore, is there any other way to handle this issue.? (eg : return 0 if eval() is trying to return that 'Bareword found where ...')
The magic of (string) eval -- and the danger -- is that it turns a heap of dummy characters into code, compiles and runs it. So can one then use '$x = ,hi'? Well, no, of course, when that string is considered code then that's a loose comma operator there, a syntax eror; and a "bareword" hi.† The string must yield valid code
In a string eval, the value of the expression (which is itself determined within scalar context) is first parsed, and if there were no errors, executed as a block within the lexical context of the current Perl program.
So that string in the question as it stands would be just (badly) invalid code, which won't compile, period. If the in.*,out [ part of the string is in quotes of some sort, then that is legitimate and the =~ operator will take it as a pattern and you have a regex. But then of course why not use regex's normal pattern delimiters, like // (or m{}, etc).
And whichever way that string gets acquired it'll be in a variable, no? So you can have /$input/ in the eval and populate that $input beforehand.
But, above all, are you certain that there is no other way? There always is. The string-eval is complex and tricky and hard to use right and nigh impossible to justify -- and dangerous. It runs arbitrary code! That can break things badly even without any bad intent.
I'd strongly suggest to consider other solutions. Also, it is unclear why there'd be need for eval in the first place -- as you only need the regex pattern as user input (not code) you can have that very regex in normal code with a pattern in a variable, which is populated earlier when the user input is supplied. (Note that taking a pattern from the user may lead to trouble as well.)
† A problem if you're into warnings, and we all are.
The following isn't valid Perl code:
$val = ($name =~ in.*,out [)
You want the following:
$val = $name =~ /in.*,out \[/
(The parens weren't harmful, but didn't help either.)
If the pattern is user-supplied, you can use the following:
$val = $name =~ /$pattern/
(No eval EXPR needed!)
Note from the correction that the pattern in the question isn't correct. You can catch such errors using eval BLOCK
eval { $val = $name =~ /$pattern/ };
die("Bad pattern \"$pattern\" provided: $#") if $#;
A note about user-provided patterns: The above won't let the user execute arbitrary code, but it won't protect you from patterns that would take longer than the lifespan of the universe to complete.
Related
My RAKU Code:
sub comments {
if ($DEBUG) { say "<filtering comments>\n"; }
my #filteredtitles = ();
# This loops through each track
for #tracks -> $title {
##########################
# LAB 1 TASK 2 #
##########################
## Add regex substitutions to remove superflous comments and all that follows them
## Assign to $_ with smartmatcher (~~)
##########################
$_ = $title;
if ($_) ~~ s:g:mrx/ .*<?[\(^.*]> / {
# Repeat for the other symbols
########################## End Task 2
# Add the edited $title to the new array of titles
#filteredtitles.push: $_;
}
}
# Updates #tracks
return #filteredtitles;
}
Result when compiling:
Error Compiling! Placeholder variable '#_' may not be used here because the surrounding block doesn't take a signature.
Is there something obvious that I am missing? Any help is appreciated.
So, in contrast with #raiph's answer, here's what I have:
my #tracks = <Foo Ba(r B^az>.map: { S:g / <[\(^]> // };
Just that. Nothing else. Let's dissect it, from the inside out:
This part: / <[\(^]> / is a regular expression that will match one character, as long as it is an open parenthesis (represented by the \() or a caret (^). When they go inside the angle brackets/square brackets combo, it means that is an Enumerated character class.
Then, the: S introduces the non-destructive substitution, i.e., a quoting construct that will make regex-based substitutions over the topic variable $_ but will not modify it, just return its value with the modifications requested. In the code above, S:g brings the adverb :g or :global (see the global adverb in the adverbs section of the documentation) to play, meaning (in the case of the substitution) "please make as many as possible of this substitution" and the final / marks the end of the substitution text, and as it is adjacent to the second /, that means that
S:g / <[\(^]> //
means "please return the contents of $_, but modified in such a way that all its characters matching the regex <[\(^]> are deleted (substituted for the empty string)"
At this point, I should emphasize that regular expressions in Raku are really powerful, and that reading the entire page (and probably the best practices and gotchas page too) is a good idea.
Next, the: .map method, documented here, will be applied to any Iterable (List, Array and all their alikes) and will return a sequence based on each element of the Iterable, altered by a Code passed to it. So, something like:
#x.map({ S:g / foo /bar/ })
essencially means "please return a Sequence of every item on #x, modified by substituting any appearance of the substring foo for bar" (nothing will be altered on #x). A nice place to start to learn about sequences and iterables would be here.
Finally, my one-liner
my #tracks = <Foo Ba(r B^az>.map: { S:g / <[\(^]> // };
can be translated as:
I have a List with three string elements
Foo
Ba(r
B^az
(This would be a placeholder for your "list of titles"). Take that list and generate a second one, that contains every element on it, but with all instances of the chars "open parenthesis" and "caret" removed.
Ah, and store the result in the variable #tracks (that has my scope)
Here's what I ended up with:
my #tracks = <Foo Ba(r B^az>;
sub comments {
my #filteredtitles;
for #tracks -> $_ is copy {
s:g / <[\(^]> //;
#filteredtitles.push: $_;
}
return #filteredtitles;
}
The is copy ensures the variable set up by the for loop is mutable.
The s:g/...//; is all that's needed to strip the unwanted characters.
One thing no one can help you with is the error you reported. I currently think you just got confused.
Here's an example of code that generates that error:
do { #_ }
But there is no way the code you've shared could generate that error because it requires that there is an #_ variable in your code, and there isn't one.
One way I can help in relation to future problems you may report on StackOverflow is to encourage you to read and apply the guidance in Minimal Reproducible Example.
While your code did not generate the error you reported, it will perhaps help you if you know about some of the other compile time and run time errors there were in the code you shared.
Compile-time errors:
You wrote s:g:mrx. That's invalid: Adverb mrx not allowed on substitution.
You missed out the third slash of the s///. That causes mayhem (see below).
There were several run-time errors, once I got past the compile-time errors. I'll discuss just one, the regex:
.*<?[...]> will match any sub-string with a final character that's one of the ones listed in the [...], and will then capture that sub-string except without the final character. In the context of an s:g/...// substitution this will strip ordinary characters (captured by the .*) but leave the special characters.
This makes no sense.
So I dropped the .*, and also the ? from the special character pattern, changing it from <?[...]> (which just tries to match against the character, but does not capture it if it succeeds) to just <[...]> (which also tries to match against the character, but, if it succeeds, does capture it as well).
A final comment is about an error you made that may well have seriously confused you.
In a nutshell, the s/// construct must have three slashes.
In your question you had code of the form s/.../ (or s:g/.../ etc), without the final slash. If you try to compile such code the parser gets utterly confused because it will think you're just writing a long replacement string.
For example, if you wrote this code:
if s/foo/ { say 'foo' }
if m/bar/ { say 'bar' }
it'd be as if you'd written:
if s/foo/ { say 'foo' }\nif m/...
which in turn would mean you'd get the compile-time error:
Missing block
------> if m/⏏bar/ { ... }
expecting any of:
block or pointy block
...
because Raku(do) would have interpreted the part between the second and third /s as the replacement double quoted string of what it interpreted as an s/.../.../ construct, leading it to barf when it encountered bar.
So, to recap, the s/// construct requires three slashes, not two.
(I'm ignoring syntactic variants of the construct such as, say, s [...] = '...'.)
Playing with the freedom that Ruby offers in its base features, I found rather easy to alias most operator used in the language, but the Regexp#~ unary prefix operator is trickier.
A first naïve approach would be to alias it in the Regexp class itself
class Regexp
alias hit ~# # remember that # stands for "prefix version"
# Note that a simple `alias_method :hit, :~#` will give the same result
end
As it was pointed in some answer bellow, this approach is somehow functionnal with the dot notation calling form, like /needle/.hit. However trying to execute hit /needle/ will raise undefined method hit' for main:Object (NoMethodError)`
So an other naïve approach would be to define this very method in Object, something like
class Object
def ~#(pattern)
pattern =~ $_
end
end
However, this won’t work, as the $_ global variable is in fact locally binded and won’t keep the value it has in the calling context, that is $_ is always nil in the previous snippet.
So the question is, is it possible to have the expression hit /needle/ to restitute the same result as ~ /needle/?
Works just fine for me:
class Regexp
alias_method :hit, :~ # both of them work
# alias hit ~ # both of them work
end
$_ = "input data"
/at/.hit #=> 7
~/at/ #=> 7
/at/.hit #=> 7
~/at/ #=> 7
So, as the completed question now inhibits it, the main hindrance is the narrow scope of $_. That’s where trace_var can come to the rescue:
trace_var :$_, proc { |nub|
$last_explicitly_read_line = nub
#puts "$_ is now '#{nub}'"
}
def reach(pattern)
$last_explicitly_read_line =~ pattern
end
def first
$_ = "It’s needless to despair."
end
def second
first
p reach /needle/
$_ = 'What a needlework!'
p reach /needle/
end
p reach /needle/
second
p reach /needle/
$_ = nil
p reach /needle/
So the basic idea is to stash the value of $_ each time it is changed in an other variable that will be accessible in other subsequent calling context. Here it was implemented with a an other global variable (not locally binded, unlike $_ of course), but the same result could be obtained with other implementations, like defining a class variable on Object.
One could also try to use something like binding_of_caller or binding_ninja, but my own approach of doing so failed, and also of course it comes with additional dependencies which have their own limitations.
I have text files containing lines like:
2/17/2018 400000098627 =2,000.0 $2.0994 $4,387.75
3/7/2018 1)0000006043 2,000.0 $2.0731 $4,332.78
3/26/2018 4 )0000034242 2,000.0 $2.1729 $4,541.36
4/17/2018 2)0000008516 2,000.0 $2.219 $4,637.71
I am matching them with /^\s*(\S+)\s+(?:[0-9|\)| ]+)+\s+([0-9|.|,]+)\s+\$/ But I also have some files with lines in a completely different format, which I match with a different regex. When I open a file I determine which format and assign $pat = '<regex-string>'; in a switch/case block:
$pat = '/^\s*(\S+)\s+(?:[0-9|\)| ]+)+\s+([0-9|.|,]+)\s+\$/'
But the ? character that introduces the non-capturing group I use to match repeats after the date and before the first currency amount causes the Perl interpreter to fail to compile the script, reporting on abort:
syntax error at ./report-dates-amounts line 28, near "}continue "
If I delete the ? character, or replace ? with \? escaped character, or first assign $q = '?' then replace ? with $q inside a " string assignment (ie. $pat = "/^\s*(\S+)\s+($q:[0-9|\)| ]+)+\s+([0-9|.|,]+)\s+\$/"; ) the script compiles and runs. If I assign the regex string outside the switch/case block that also works OK. Perl v5.26.1 .
My code also doesn't have any }continue in it, which as reported in the compilation failure is probably some kind of transformation of the switch/case code by Switch.pm into something native the compiler chokes on. Is this some kind of bug in Switch.pm? It fails even when I use given/when in exactly the same way.
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
use Switch;
# Edited for demo
switch($format)
{
# Format A eg:
# 2/17/2018 400000098627 =2,000.0 $2.0994 $4,387.75
# 3/7/2018 1)0000006043 2,000.0 $2.0731 $4,332.78
# 3/26/2018 4 )0000034242 2,000.0 $2.1729 $4,541.36
# 4/17/2018 2)0000008516 2,000.0 $2.219 $4,637.71
#
case /^(?:april|snow)$/i
{ # This is where the ? character breaks compilation:
$pat = '^\s*(\S+)\s+(?:[0-9|\)| ]+)+\s+\D?(\S+)\s+\$';
# WORKS:
# $pat = '^\s*(\S+)\s+(' .$q. ':[0-9|\)| ]+)+\s+\D' .$q. '(\S+)\s+\$';
}
# Format B
case /^(?:umberto|petro)$/i
{
$pat = '^(\S+)\s+.*Think 1\s+(\S+)\s+';
}
}
Don't use Switch. As mentionned by #choroba in the comments, Switch uses a source filter, which leads to mysterious and hard to debug errors, as you constated.
The module's documentation itself says:
In general, use given/when instead. It were introduced in perl 5.10.0. Perl 5.10.0 was released in 2007.
However, given/when is not necessarily a good option as it is experimental and likely to change in the future (it seems that this feature was almost removed from Perl v5.28; so you definitely don't want to start using it now if you can avoid it). A good alternative is to use for:
for ($format) {
if (/^(?:april|snow)$/i) {
...
}
elsif (/^(?:umberto|petro)$/i) {
...
}
}
It might look weird a first, but once you get used to it, it's actually reasonable in my opinion. Or, of course, you can use none of this options and just do:
sub pattern_from_format {
my $format = shift;
if ($format =~ /^(?:april|snow)$/i) {
return qr/^\s*(\S+)\s+(?:[0-9|\)| ]+)+\s+\D?(\S+)\s+\$/;
}
elsif ($format =~ /^(?:umberto|petro)$/i) {
return qr/^(\S+)\s+.*Think 1\s+(\S+)\s+/;
}
# Some error handling here maybe
}
If, for some reason, you still want to use Switch: use m/.../ instead of /.../.
I have no idea why this bug is happening, however, the documentation says:
Also, the presence of regexes specified with raw ?...? delimiters may cause mysterious errors. The workaround is to use m?...? instead.
Which I misread at first, and therefore tried to use m/../ instead of /../, which fixed the issue.
Another option instead of an if/elsif chain would be to loop over a hash which maps your regular expressions to the values which should be assigned to $pat:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
my %switch = (
'^(?:april|snow)$' => '^\s*(\S+)\s+(?:[0-9|\)| ]+)+\s+\D?(\S+)\s+\$',
'^(?:umberto|petro)$' => '^(\S+)\s+.*Think 1\s+(\S+)\s+',
);
for my $re (keys %switch) {
if ($format =~ /$re/i) {
$pat = $switch{$re};
last;
}
}
For a more general case (i.e., if you're doing more than just assigning a string to a scalar) you could use the same general technique, but use coderefs as the values of your hash, thus allowing it to execute an arbitrary sub based on the match.
This approach can cover a pretty wide range of the functionality usually associated with switch/case constructs, but note that, because the conditions are pulled from the keys of a hash, they'll be evaluated in a random order. If you have data which could match more than one condition, you'll need to take extra precautions to handle that, such as having a parallel array with the conditions in the proper order or using Tie::IxHash instead of a regular hash.
I am pretty new to Perl. I have the following code fragment that works just fine, but I don't fully understand it:
for ($i = 1; $i <= $pop->Count(); $i++) {
foreach ( $pop->Head( $i ) ) {
/^(From|Subject):\s+/i and print $_, "\n";
}
}
$pop->Head is a string or an array of strings returned by the function Mail::POP3Client, and it is the headers of a bunch of emails. Line 3 is some kind of regular expression that extracts the FROM and the SUBJECT from the header.
My question is how does the print function only print the From and the Subject without all the other stuff in the header? What does "and" mean - this surely can't be a boolean and can it? Most important, I want to put the From string into its own variable (my $fromline). How do I do this?
I am hoping that this will be easy for some Perl professional, it has got me baffled!
Thanks in advance.
ARGHHH... The question was edited while I was typing the answer. OK, throwing out the part of my answer that's no longer relevant, and focusing on the specific questions:
The outer loop iterates over all the messages in the mailbox.
The inner loop doesn't specify a loop variable, so the special variable $_ is used.
In each iteration through the inner loop, $_ is one header line from message number $i.
/^(From|Subject):\s+/i and print $_, "\n";
The first part of this line, up to the and is a pattern. We didn't specify what to do with the pattern, so it's implicitly matched against $_. (That's one of the things that makes $_ special.) This gives us a yes/no test: does the pattern match the header line or not?
The pattern tests whether that item begins with (<) either of the words "From" or "Subject", followed immediately by a colon and one or more whitespace characters. (This not the correct pattern to match an RFC 822 header. Whitespace is optional on both sides of the colon. The pattern should more properly be /^(From|Subject)\s*:\s*/i. But that's a separate issue.) the i at the end of the pattern says to ignore case, so from or SUBJECT would be OK.
The and says to continue evaluating (i.e., executing) the expression if there is a match. If there's no match, whatever follows and is ignored.
The rest of the expression prints the header line ($_) and a newline ("\n").
In perl, and and or are boolean operators. They're synonyms for && and ||, except that they have much lower precedence, making it easier to write short-ciruit expressions without clutter from lots of parentheses.
The smallest change that captures the From line into a separate variable would be to add the following line to the inner loop:
/^From\s*:\s*(.*)$/i and $fromline = $1;
You should probably also put
$fromline = undef
before the loop so you can test, after the loop, whether there was a From: line.
There are other ways to do it. In fact, that's one of the mantras of perl: "There's more than one way to do it." I've stripped out the "From: " from the beginning of the line before storing the balance in $fromline, but I don't know your needs.
It's a logical and with short-circuiting. If the left side evaluates to true -- say, if that regular expression matches -- it'll evaluate the right side, the print.
If the expression on the left is false, it doesn't need to evaluate the right hand side, because the net result would still be false, so it skips it.
See also: perldoc perlop
I'm spending my weekend analyzing Campaign Finance Contribution records. Fun!
One of the annoying things I've noticed is that entity names are entered differently:
For example, i see stuff like this: 'llc', 'llc.', 'l l c', 'l.l.c', 'l. l. c.', 'llc,', etc.
I'm trying to catch all these variants.
So it would be something like:
"l([,\.\ ]*)l([,\.\ ]*)c([,\.\ ]*)"
Which isn't so bad... except there are about 40 entity suffixes that I can think of.
The best thing I can think of is programmatically building up this pattern , based on my list of suffixes.
I'm wondering if there's a better way to handle this within a single regex that is human readable/writable.
You could just strip out excess crap. Using Perl:
my $suffix = "l. lc.."; # the worst case imaginable!
$suffix =~ s/[.\s]//g;
# no matter what variation $suffix was, it's now just "llc"
Obviously this may maul your input if you use it on the full company name, but getting too in-depth with how to do that would require knowing what language we're working with. A possible regex solution is to copy the company name and strip out a few common words and any words with more than (about) 4 characters:
my $suffix = $full_name;
$suffix =~ s/\w{4,}//g; # strip words of more than 4 characters
$suffix =~ s/(a|the|an|of)//ig; # strip a few common cases
# now we can mangle $suffix all we want
# and be relatively sure of what we're doing
It's not perfect, but it should be fairly effective, and more readable than using a single "monster regex" to try to match all of them. As a rule, don't use a monster regex to match all cases, use a series of specialized regexes to narrow many cases down to a few. It will be easier to understand.
Regexes (other than relatively simple ones) and readability rarely go hand-in-hand. Don't misunderstand me, I love them for the simplicity they usually bring, but they're not fit for all purposes.
If you want readability, just create an array of possible values and iterate through them, checking your field against them to see if there's a match.
Unless you're doing gene sequencing, the speed difference shouldn't matter. And it will be a lot easier to add a new one when you discover it. Adding an element to an array is substantially easier than reverse-engineering a regex.
The first two "l" parts can be simplified by [the first "l" part here]{2}.
You can squish periods and whitespace first, before matching: for instance, in perl:
while (<>) {
$Sq = $_;
$Sq =~ s/[.\s]//g; # squish away . and " " in the temporary save version
$Sq = lc($Sq);
/^llc$/ and $_ = 'L.L.C.'; # try to match, if so save the canonical version
/^ibm/ and $_ = 'IBM'; # a different match
print $_;
}
Don't use regexes, instead build up a map of all discovered (so far) entries and their 'canonical' (favourite) versions.
Also build a tool to discover possible new variants of postfixes by identifying common prefixes to a certain number of characters and printing them on the screen so you can add new rules.
In Perl you can build up regular expressions inside your program using strings. Here's some example code:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my #strings = (
"l.l.c",
"llc",
"LLC",
"lLc",
"l,l,c",
"L . L C ",
"l W c"
);
my #seps = ('.',',','\s');
my $sep_regex = '[' . join('', #seps) . ']*';
my $regex_def = join '', (
'[lL]',
$sep_regex,
'[lL]',
$sep_regex,
'[cC]'
);
print "definition: $regex_def\n";
foreach my $str (#strings) {
if ( $str =~ /$regex_def/ ) {
print "$str matches\n";
} else {
print "$str doesn't match\n";
}
}
This regular expression could also be simplified by using case-insensitive matching (which means $match =~ /$regex/i ). If you run this a few times on the strings that you define, you can easily see cases that don't validate according to your regular expression. Building up your regular expression this way can be useful in only defining your separator symbols once, and I think that people are likely to use the same separators for a wide variety of abbreviations (like IRS, I.R.S, irs, etc).
You also might think about looking into approximate string matching algorithms, which are popular in a large number of areas. The idea behind these is that you define a scoring system for comparing strings, and then you can measure how similar input strings are to your canonical string, so that you can recognize that "LLC" and "lLc" are very similar strings.
Alternatively, as other people have suggested you could write an input sanitizer that removes unwanted characters like whitespace, commas, and periods. In the context of the program above, you could do this:
my $sep_regex = '[' . join('', #seps) . ']*';
foreach my $str (#strings) {
my $copy = $str;
$copy =~ s/$sep_regex//g;
$copy = lc $copy;
print "$str -> $copy\n";
}
If you have control of how the data is entered originally, you could use such a sanitizer to validate input from the users and other programs, which will make your analysis much easier.