Personally, I feel the answer is rather ugly and I would avoid it. You may think it's okay, though.

If $ref_srv has characters which might have a special meaning in a regex and you wish to avoid this:

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.
Silence is Evil (feel free to copy and distribute widely - note copyright text)

D'OH! That's so obvious!

Thanks. Why do you find it ugly? Is there a better way to do it?

Cheers,
ibanix

$ echo '$0 & $0 &' > foo; chmod a+x foo; foo;

I don't want to answer for Ovid but I especially dislike mixing the declaration with that kind of assignment. I'd prefer

my $foo; 
($foo = $bar) =~ s/baz/qux/;
[download]

but if you are going to separate them anyway, it makes perfect sense to do it in a way that makes all the steps blindingly obvious such as this:

my $foo = $bar; 
$bar =~ s/baz/qux/;
[download]

There's rarely a good reason to sacrifice clarity for brevity.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Well it's ugly to me because it's not immediately apparent what you're trying to do. Why not just do this

my($path) = $logfilepath;
$path =~ s/$ref_srv/$server/i;
[download]

Choosing between the two, I'd go with the simpler. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should ;)

update (broquaint): changed <pre> to <code>

For me, this is an aesthetic thing that you can safely ignore. If I want extra parentheses, I'd code in Lisp :)

If you like them, however, it's not a problem, so don't worry about my blather.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.
Silence is Evil (feel free to copy and distribute widely - note copyright text)

s/$ref_srv/$server/i for my $path = $logfilepath;
[download]

Makeshifts last the longest.