You can intermix C<m//g> matches with C<m/\G.../g>, where C<\G> is a
zero-width assertion that matches the exact position where the previous
-C<m//g>, if any, left off. The C<\G> assertion is not supported without
-the C</g> modifier. (Currently, without C</g>, C<\G> behaves just like
-C<\A>, but that's accidental and may change in the future.)
+C<m//g>, if any, left off. Without the C</g> modifier, the C<\G> assertion
+still anchors at pos(), but the match is of course only attempted once.
+Using C<\G> without C</g> on a target string that has not previously had a
+C</g> match applied to it is the same as using the C<\A> assertion to match
+the beginning of the string.
Examples:
($one,$five,$fifteen) = (`uptime` =~ /(\d+\.\d+)/g);
# scalar context
- $/ = ""; $* = 1; # $* deprecated in modern perls
+ $/ = "";
while (defined($paragraph = <>)) {
while ($paragraph =~ /[a-z]['")]*[.!?]+['")]*\s/g) {
$sentences++;
print "3: '";
print $1 while /(p)/gc; print "', pos=", pos, "\n";
}
+ print "Final: '$1', pos=",pos,"\n" if /\G(.)/;
The last example should print:
1: '', pos=7
2: 'q', pos=8
3: '', pos=8
+ Final: 'q', pos=8
+
+Notice that the final match matched C<q> instead of C<p>, which a match
+without the C<\G> anchor would have done. Also note that the final match
+did not update C<pos> -- C<pos> is only updated on a C</g> match. If the
+final match did indeed match C<p>, it's a good bet that you're running an
+older (pre-5.6.0) Perl.
A useful idiom for C<lex>-like scanners is C</\G.../gc>. You can
combine several regexps like this to process a string part-by-part,