Perl makes it very convenient to get some symbol.
$ perl -CO -E 'say "\N{FAMILY}"'
👪
Is there a way to evaluate the symbol with "\N{}" via interpolation? Something similar to:
perl -CO -E 'my $what = "FAMILY"; say "\N{$what}"'
(which does not work, but gives you the flavour).
Besides feasibility, is there any drawback or possible threat in such evaluation? E.g. say the $what string is user-defined, I would never eval $what. Would I \N{$what} safely?
Ops...
After getting the answers, I noticed how this information clearly stated in perlunicook. Sorry for the lack of RTFM. I guess this is a good thing to have on stackoverflow anyway.
Use the vianame function from charnames:
perl -CO -Mcharnames=:full -wE 'say chr charnames::vianame("PILE OF POO")'
💩
use charnames ();
my $what = "FAMILY";
say charnames::string_vianame($what);
Related
While reading a book on advanced Perl programming(1), I came across
this code:
while (defined($s = <>)) {
...
Is there any special reason for using defined here? The documentation for
perlop says:
In these loop constructs, the assigned value (whether assignment is
automatic or explicit) is then tested to see whether it is defined. The
defined test avoids problems where line has a string value that would be
treated as false by Perl, for example a "" or a "0" with no trailing
newline. If you really mean for such values to terminate the loop, they
should be tested for explicitly: [...]
So, would there be a corner case or that's simply because the book is too old
and the automatic defined test was added in a recent Perl version?
(1) Advanced Perl Programming, First Edition, Sriram Srinivasan. O'Reilly
(1997)
Perl has a lot of implicit behaviors, many more than most other languages. Perl's motto is There's More Than One To Do It, and because there is so much implicit behavior, there is often More Than One Way To express the exact same thing.
/foo/ instead of $_ =~ m/foo/
$x = shift instead of $x = shift #_
while (defined($_=<ARGV>)) instead of while(<>)
etc.
Which expressions to use are largely a matter of your local coding standards and personal preference. The more explicit expressions remind the reader what is really going on under the hood. This may or may not improve the readability of the code -- that depends on how knowledgeable the audience is and whether you are using well-known idioms.
In this case, the implicit behavior is a little more complicated than it seems. Sometimes perl will implicitly perform a defined(...) test on the result of the readline operator:
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'while($s=<>) { print $s }'
while (defined($s = <ARGV>)) {
print $s;
}
-e syntax OK
but sometimes it won't:
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'if($s=<>) { print $s }'
if ($s = <ARGV>) {
print $s;
}
-e syntax OK
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'while(some_condition() && ($s=<>)) { print $s }'
while (some_condition() and $s = <ARGV>) {
print $s;
}
-e syntax OK
Suppose that you are concerned about the corner cases that this implicit behavior is supposed to handle. Have you committed perlop to memory so that you understand when Perl uses this implicit behavior and when it doesn't? Do you understand the differences in this behavior between Perl v5.14 and Perl v5.6? Will the people reading your code understand?
Again, there's no right or wrong answer about when to use the more explicit expressions, but the case for using an explicit expression is stronger when the implicit behavior is more esoteric.
Say you have the following file
4<LF>
3<LF>
2<LF>
1<LF>
0
(<LF> represents a line feed. Note the lack of newline on the last line.)
Say you use the code
while ($s = <>) {
chomp;
say $s;
}
If Perl didn't do anything magical, the output would be
4
3
2
1
Note the lack of 0, since the string 0 is false. defined is needed in the unlikely case that
You have a non-standard text file (missing trailing newline).
The last line of the file consists of a single ASCII zero (0x30).
BUT WAIT A MINUTE! If you actually ran the above code with the above data, you would see 0 printed! What many don't know is that Perl automagically translates
while ($s = <>) {
to
while (defined($s = <>)) {
as seen here:
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e'while($s=<DATA>) {}'
while (defined($s = <DATA>)) {
();
}
__DATA__
-e syntax OK
So you technically don't even need to specify defined in this very specific circumstance.
That said, I can't blame someone for being explicit instead of relying on Perl automagically modifying their code. After all, Perl is (necessarily) quite specific as to which code sequences it will change. Note the lack of defined in the following even though it's supposedly equivalent code:
$ perl -MO=Deparse -e'while((), $s=<DATA>) {}'
while ((), $s = <DATA>) {
();
}
__DATA__
-e syntax OK
while($line=<DATA>){
chomp($line);
if(***defined*** $line){
print "SEE:$line\n";
}
}
__DATA__
1
0
3
Try the code with defined removed and you will see the different result.
Perl docs recommend this:
$foo = $bar =~ s/this/that/r;
However, I get this error:
Bareword found where operator expected near
"s/this/that/r" (#1)
This is specific to the r modifier, without it the code works.
However, I do not want to modify $bar.
I can, of course, replace
my $foo = $bar =~ s/this/that/r;
with
my $foo = $bar;
$foo =~ s/this/that/;
Is there a better solution?
As ruakh wrote, /r is new in perl 5.14. However you can do this in previous versions of perl:
(my $foo = $bar) =~ s/this/that/;
There's no better solution, no (though I usually write it on one line, since the s/// is essentially serving as part of the initialization process:
my $foo = $bar; $foo =~ s/this/that/;
By the way, the reason for your error-message is almost certainly that you're running a version of Perl that doesn't support the /r flag. That flag was added quite recently, in Perl 5.14. You might find it easier to develop using the documentation for your own version; for example, http://perldoc.perl.org/5.12.4/perlop.html if you're on Perl 5.12.4.
For completeness.
If you are stuck with an older version of perl.
And really want to use the s/// command without resorting to using a temporary variable.
Here is one way:
perl -E 'say map { s/_iter\d+\s*$//; $_ } $ENV{PWD}'
Basically use map to transform a copy of the string and return the final output.
Instead of what s/// does - of returning the count of substitutions.
I have a file, someFile, like this:
$cat someFile
hdisk1 active
hdisk2 active
I use this shell script to check:
$cat a.sh
#!/usr/bin/ksh
for d in 1 2
do
grep -q "hdisk$d" someFile && echo "$d : ok"
done
I am trying to convert it to Perl:
$cat b.sh
#!/usr/bin/ksh
export d
for d in 1 2
do
cat someFile | perl -lane 'BEGIN{$d=$ENV{'d'};} print "$d: OK" if /hdisk$d\s+/'
done
I export the variable d in the shell script and get the value using %ENV in Perl. Is there a better way of passing this value to the Perl one-liner?
You can enable rudimentary command line argument with the "s" switch. A variable gets defined for each argument starting with a dash. The -- tells where your command line arguments start.
for d in 1 2 ; do
cat someFile | perl -slane ' print "$someParameter: OK" if /hdisk$someParameter\s+/' -- -someParameter=$d;
done
See: perlrun
Sometimes breaking the Perl enclosure is a good trick for these one-liners:
for d in 1 2 ; do cat kk2 | perl -lne ' print "'"${d}"': OK" if /hdisk'"${d}"'\s+/';done
Pass it on the command line, and it will be available in #ARGV:
for d in 1 2
do
perl -lne 'BEGIN {$d=shift} print "$d: OK" if /hdisk$d\s+/' $d someFile
done
Note that the shift operator in this context removes the first element of #ARGV, which is $d in this case.
Combining some of the earlier suggestions and adding my own sugar to it, I'd do it this way:
perl -se '/hdisk([$d])/ && print "$1: ok\n" for <>' -- -d='[value]' [file]
[value] can be a number (i.e. 2), a range (i.e. 2-4), a list of different numbers (i.e. 2|3|4) (or almost anything else, that's a valid pattern) or even a bash variable containing one of those, example:
d='2-3'
perl -se '/hdisk([$d])/ && print "$1: ok\n" for <>' -- -d=$d someFile
and [file] is your filename (that is, someFile).
If you are having trouble writing a one-liner, maybe it is a bit hard for one line (just my opinion). I would agree with #FM's suggestion and do the whole thing in Perl. Read the whole file in and then test it:
use strict;
local $/ = '' ; # Read in the whole file
my $file = <> ;
for my $d ( 1 .. 2 )
{
print "$d: OK\n" if $file =~ /hdisk$d\s+/
}
You could do it looping, but that would be longer. Of course it somewhat depends on the size of the file.
Note that all the Perl examples so far will print a message for each match - can you be sure there are no duplicates?
My solution is a little different. I came to your question with a Google search the title of your question, but I'm trying to execute something different. Here it is in case it helps someone:
FYI, I was using tcsh on Solaris.
I had the following one-liner:
perl -e 'use POSIX qw(strftime); print strftime("%Y-%m-%d", localtime(time()-3600*24*2));'
which outputs the value:
2013-05-06
I was trying to place this into a shell script so I could create a file with a date in the filename, of X numbers of days in the past. I tried:
set dateVariable=`perl -e 'use POSIX qw(strftime); print strftime("%Y-%m-%d", localtime(time()-3600*24*$numberOfDaysPrior));'`
But this didn't work due to variable substitution. I had to mess around with the quoting, to get it to interpret it properly. I tried enclosing the whole lot in double quotes, but this made the Perl command not syntactically correct, as it messed with the double quotes around date format. I finished up with:
set dateVariable=`perl -e "use POSIX qw(strftime); print strftime('%Y-%m-%d', localtime(time()-3600*24*$numberOfDaysPrior));"`
Which worked great for me, without having to resort to any fancy variable exporting.
I realise this doesn't exactly answer your specific question, but it answered the title and might help someone else!
That looks good, but I'd use:
for d in $(seq 1 2); do perl -nle 'print "hdisk$ENV{d} OK" if $_ =~ /hdisk$ENV{d}/' someFile; done
It's already written on the top in one long paragraph but I am also writing for lazy developers who don't read those lines.
Double quotes and single quote has big different meaning for the bash.
So please take care
Doesn't WORK perl '$VAR' $FILEPATH
WORKS perl "$VAR" $FILEPATH
This question already has answers here:
How can I manually interpolate string escapes in a Perl string?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Say I have an environment variable myvar:
myvar=\tapple\n
When the following command will print out this variable
perl -e 'print "$ENV{myvar}"'
I will literally have \tapple\n, however, I want those control chars to be evaluated and not escaped. How would I achieve it?
In the real world $ENV residing in substitution, but I hope the answer will cover that.
Use eval:
perl -e 'print eval qq{"$ENV{myvar}"}'
UPD: You can also use substitution with the ee switch, which is safer:
perl -e '(my $s = $ENV{myvar}) =~ s/(\\n|\\t)/"qq{$1}"/gee; print $s'
You should probably be using String::Escape.
use String::Escape qw(unbackslash);
my $var = unbackslash($ENV{'myvar'});
unbackslash unescapes any string escape sequences it finds, turning them into the characters they represent. If you want to explicitly only translate \n and \t, you'll probably have to do it yourself with a substitution as in this answer.
There's nothing particularly special about a sequence of characters that includes a \. If you want to substitute one sequence of characters for another, it's very simple to do in Perl:
my %sequences = (
'\\t' => "\t",
'\\n' => "\n",
'foo' => 'bar',
);
my $string = '\\tstring fool string\\tfoo\\n';
print "Before: [$string]\n";
$string =~ s/\Q$_/$sequences{$_}/g for ( keys %sequences );
print "After: [$string]\n";
The only trick with \ is to keep track of the times when Perl thinks it's an escape character.
Before: [\tstring fool string\tfoo\n]
After: [ string barl string bar
]
However, as darch notes, you might just be able to use String::Escape.
Note that you have to be extremely careful when you're taking values from environment variables. I'd be reluctant to use String::Escape since it might process quite a bit more than you are willing to translate. The safe way is to only expand the particular values you explicitly want to allow. See my "Secure Programming Techniques" chapter in Mastering Perl where I talk about this, along with the taint checking you might want to use in this case.
Is it possible one way or another to, within a Perl script, effectively execute grep against a Perl variable? An equivalent Perl function would be equally acceptable, I just want to keep the solution as simple as possible.
For example:
#!/usr/bin/perl
#!/bin/grep
$var="foobar";
$newvar="system('grep -o "foo" $var');
sprintf $newvar;
Where I expect sprintf $newvar to output foo.
Would also welcome any feedback on best practice here. I am not extremely familiar with Perl.
you can just use regex matching in Perl. No need to call external "grep" command.
$var =~ /foo/;
please read documentation perlrequick for introduction on how to search for patterns in variables. Also of interest is Perl's own grep.
$var="foobar";
if ( $var =~ /foo/){
print "found foo\n";
}