sub func {
my ($n) = @_;
return unless ($n);
my @array;
push @array, $1 while $n =~ /
((?:
[^(),]+ |
( \(
(?: [^()]+ | (?2) )*
\) )
)+)
(?: ,\s* | $)
/xg;
return \@array;
}
for my $item (@array) {
if (index($item, '$n') != -1) {
print "HELLO\n";
}
}
I have above regex to split some string into array. It works fine.
Problem is :
Perl critic gives below errors. Please advise how do i fix this.
Capture variable used outside conditional at line 150,
near 'push @array, $1 while $n =~ /'. (Severity: 3)
Use '{' and '}' to delimit multi-line regexps at line 150,
near 'push @input_expression, $1 while $n =~ /'. (Severity: 1)
String *may* require interpolation at line 168,
near '$item, '$n''. (Severity: 1)
Perl Critic doesn't give any errors. It gives policy violations.
To fix the first one, change the loop from modifier to normal while loop and name the variable:
while ($n =~ /
...
/xg) {
my $match = $1;
push @array, $match;
}
To fix the second one, just change /.../ to m{...}.
In my opinion, it makes little sense to use policies you don't understand well. Sometimes, there might be very good reasons to break some of them; blindly following Perl Critic (especially at more stern levels) doesn't bring you anything.
The first one is IMO a false positive, since while is acting as the conditional here - the push @array, $1 won't get executed unless the regexp matched, which is what the policy wants (add --verbose 11 to the perlcritic invocation to see the explanations). This is a case where I think it's safe to suppress the policy, as I show below.
The second one is easy to fix, simply replace $n =~ /.../xg with $n =~ m{...}xg.
push @array, $1 ## no critic (ProhibitCaptureWithoutTest)
while $n =~ m{ ... }xg;
That suppresses those two messages.
As a side note, running perlcritic at brutal severity is IMO a little extreme, and it'll complain about a lot of other stuff in that snippet. Personally, when I use it, I run perlcritic at harsh (-3) with a few policies at customized levels.
Edit: As for your third perlcritic message, which you added to your post later, it looks like that's been answered in your other post.
