My code below loosely is per Zehra Nasif answer from Regular expression for matching latitude/longitude coordinates? (May 15 '14 at 20:00). While my code below is for MapServer, I think vanilla RE should work; the documentation says 'Google Regular Expression'! Here is my code:
VALIDATION
# '^[0-9]{5,8}$' # %parcelid% must be numeric and between 5 and 8 characters
'memberlong' "^-?[0-9]{1,3}(?:\.[0-9]{1,30})$" # -91.6666
'memberlat' "^[0-9]{1,3}(?:\.[0-9]{1,30})$" # 30.6666
'num_miles' "[0-9]+$" # 1200 works.
END
The first line is per the Mapserver document--that's just to illustrate their engine. And the num_miles works when the input argument is 1200; that's also just to illustrate their engine. However, both memberlong and memberlat (or at least one of them--can't be sure because debug not pinpointing that) throw error msApplySubstitutions(): Regular expression error. Parameter pattern validation failed and I think my regular expressions are not correct. I think, for now at least, it is safe to assume that memberlong (the longitudes) will be always negative and memberlat (the latitudes) will always be positive values, although for long term they should be able to handle negatives/positive. I just need to move on.
Any ideas?
Not all regex flavors support non-capturing groups, (?:...) constructs. For example, POSIX ERE/BRE and XML Schema regex flavors only support capturing groups.
Moreover, in your case, you may simply remove the non-capturing groups as (?:xxx) = xxx. We only use non-capturing groups when we need to introduce alternations, or when we need to repeat a sequence of patterns with a quantifier.
So you need to use
'memberlong' "^-?[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,30}$"
'memberlat' "^[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,30}$"
Related
I keep bumping into situations where I need to capture a number of tokens from a string and after countless tries I couldn't find a way to simplify the process.
So let's say the text is:
start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end
This example has 8 items inside, but say it could have between 3 and 10 items.
I'd ideally like something like this:
start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end nice and clean BUT it only captures the last match. see here
I usually use something like this in simple situations:
start:(\w+)-(\w+)-(\w+)-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?:end
3 groups mandatory and another 7 optional because of the max 10 limit, but this doesn't look 'nice' and it would be a pain to write and track if the max limit was 100 and the matches were more complex. demo
And the best I could do so far:
start:(\w+)-((?1))-((?1))-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?:end
shorter especially if the matches are complex but still long. demo
Anyone managed to make it work as a 1 regex-only solution without programming?
I'm mostly interested on how can this be done in PCRE but other flavors would be ok too.
Update:
The purpose is to validate a match and capture individual tokens inside match 0 by RegEx alone, without any OS/Software/Programming-Language limitation
Update 2 (bounty):
With #nhahtdh's help I got to the RegExp below by using \G:
(?:start:(?=(?:[\w]+(?:-|(?=:end))){3,10}:end)|(?!^)\G-)([\w]+)
demo even shorter, but can be described without repeating code
I'm also interested in the ECMA flavor and as it doesn't support \G wondering if there's another way, especially without using /g modifier.
Read this first!
This post is to show the possibility rather than endorsing the "everything regex" approach to problem. The author has written 3-4 variations, each has subtle bug that are tricky to detect, before reaching the current solution.
For your specific example, there are other better solution that is more maintainable, such as matching and splitting the match along the delimiters.
This post deals with your specific example. I really doubt a full generalization is possible, but the idea behind is reusable for similar cases.
Summary
.NET supports capturing repeating pattern with CaptureCollection class.
For languages that supports \G and look-behind, we may be able to construct a regex that works with global matching function. It is not easy to write it completely correct and easy to write a subtly buggy regex.
For languages without \G and look-behind support: it is possible to emulate \G with ^, by chomping the input string after a single match. (Not covered in this answer).
Solution
This solution assumes the regex engine supports \G match boundary, look-ahead (?=pattern), and look-behind (?<=pattern). Java, Perl, PCRE, .NET, Ruby regex flavors support all those advanced features above.
However, you can go with your regex in .NET. Since .NET supports capturing all instances of that is matched by a capturing group that is repeated via CaptureCollection class.
For your case, it can be done in one regex, with the use of \G match boundary, and look-ahead to constrain the number of repetitions:
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
DEMO. The construction is \w+- repeated, then \w+:end.
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
DEMO. The construction is \w+ for the first item, then -\w+ repeated. (Thanks to ka ᵠ for the suggestion). This construction is simpler to reason about its correctness, since there are less alternations.
\G match boundary is especially useful when you need to do tokenization, where you need to make sure the engine not skipping ahead and matching stuffs that should have been invalid.
Explanation
Let us break down the regex:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?<=-)\G
)
(\w+)
(?:-|:end)
The easiest part to recognize is (\w+) in the line before last, which is the word that you want to capture.
The last line is also quite easy to recognize: the word to be matched may be followed by - or :end.
I allow the regex to freely start matching anywhere in the string. In other words, start:...:end can appear anywhere in the string, and any number of times; the regex will simply match all the words. You only need to process the array returned to separate where the matched tokens actually come from.
As for the explanation, the beginning of the regex checks for the presence of the string start:, and the following look-ahead checks that the number of words is within specified limit and it ends with :end. Either that, or we check that the character before the previous match is a -, and continue from previous match.
For the other construction:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?!^)\G-
)
(\w+)
Everything is almost the same, except that we match start:\w+ first before matching the repetition of the form -\w+. In contrast to the first construction, where we match start:\w+- first, and the repeated instances of \w+- (or \w+:end for the last repetition).
It is quite tricky to make this regex works for matching in middle of the string:
We need to check the number of words between start: and :end (as part of the requirement of the original regex).
\G matches the beginning of the string also! (?!^) is needed to prevent this behavior. Without taking care of this, the regex may produce a match when there isn't any start:.
For the first construction, the look-behind (?<=-) already prevent this case ((?!^) is implied by (?<=-)).
For the first construction (?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end), we need to make sure that we don't match anything funny after :end. The look-behind is for that purpose: it prevents any garbage after :end from matching.
The second construction doesn't run into this problem, since we will get stuck at : (of :end) after we have matched all the tokens in between.
Validation Version
If you want to do validation that the input string follows the format (no extra stuff in front and behind), and extract the data, you can add anchors as such:
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
(Look-behind is also not needed, but we still need (?!^) to prevent \G from matching the start of the string).
Construction
For all the problems where you want to capture all instances of a repetition, I don't think there exists a general way to modify the regex. One example of a "hard" (or impossible?) case to convert is when a repetition has to backtrack one or more loop to fulfill certain condition to match.
When the original regex describes the whole input string (validation type), it is usually easier to convert compared to a regex that tries to match from the middle of the string (matching type). However, you can always do a match with the original regex, and we convert matching type problem back to validation type problem.
We build such regex by going through these steps:
Write a regex that covers the part before the repetition (e.g. start:). Let us call this prefix regex.
Match and capture the first instance. (e.g. (\w+))
(At this point, the first instance and delimiter should have been matched)
Add the \G as an alternation. Usually also need to prevent it from matching the start of the string.
Add the delimiter (if any). (e.g. -)
(After this step, the rest of the tokens should have also been matched, except the last maybe)
Add the part that covers the part after the repetition (if necessary) (e.g. :end). Let us call the part after the repetition suffix regex (whether we add it to the construction doesn't matter).
Now the hard part. You need to check that:
There is no other way to start a match, apart from the prefix regex. Take note of the \G branch.
There is no way to start any match after the suffix regex has been matched. Take note of how \G branch starts a match.
For the first construction, if you mix the suffix regex (e.g. :end) with delimiter (e.g. -) in an alternation, make sure you don't end up allowing the suffix regex as delimiter.
Although it might theoretically be possible to write a single expression, it's a lot more practical to match the outer boundaries first and then perform a split on the inner part.
In ECMAScript I would write it like this:
'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end'
.match(/^start:([\w-]+):end$/)[1] // match the inner part
.split('-') // split inner part (this could be a split regex as well)
In PHP:
$txt = 'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end';
if (preg_match('/^start:([\w-]+):end$/', $txt, $matches)) {
print_r(explode('-', $matches[1]));
}
Of course you can use the regex in this quoted string.
"(?<a>\\w+)-(?<b>\\w+)-(?:(?<c>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<d>\\w+)(?:-(?<e>\\w+)(?:-(?<f>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<g>\\w+)(?:-(?<h>\\w+)(?:-(?<i>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<j>\\w+))?" \
")?)?)?" \
")?)?)?" \
")"
Is it a good idea? No, I don't think so.
Not sure you can do it in that way, but you can use the global flag to find all of the words between the colons, see:
http://regex101.com/r/gK0lX1
You'd have to validate the number of groups yourself though. Without the global flag you're only getting a single match, not all matches - change {3,10} to {1,5} and you get the result 'sir' instead.
import re
s = "start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end"
print re.findall(r"(\b\w+?\b)(?:-|:end)", s)
produces
['test', 'test', 'lorem', 'ipsum', 'sir', 'doloret', 'etc', 'etc', 'something']
When you combine:
Your observation: any kind of repitition of a single capture group will result in an overwrite of the last capture, thus returning only the last capture of the capture group.
The knowledge: Any kind of capturing based on the parts, instead of the whole, makes it impossible to set a limit on the amount of times the regex engine will repeat. The limit would have to be metadata (not regex).
With a requirement that the answer cannot involve programming (looping), nor an answer that involves simply copy-pasting capturegroups as you've done in your question.
It can be deduced that it cannot be done.
Update: There are some regex engines for which p. 1 is not necessarily true. In that case the regex you have indicated start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end will do the job (source).
This question comes from "Automate the boring stuff with python" book.
atRegex1 = re.compile(r'\w{1,2}at')
atRegex2 = re.compile(r'\w{1,2}?at')
atRegex1.findall('The cat in the hat sat on the flat mat.')
atRegex2.findall('The cat in the hat sat on the flat mat.')
I thought the question market ? should conduct a non-greedy match, so \w{1,2}? should only return 1 character. But for both of these functions, I get the same output:
['cat', 'hat', 'sat', 'flat', 'mat']
In the book,
nongreedyHaRegex = re.compile(r'(Ha){3,5}?')
mo2 = nongreedyHaRegex.search('HaHaHaHaHa')
mo2.group()
'HaHaHa'
Any one can help me understand why there is a difference? Thanks!
The issue you're experiencing is due to the nature of backtracking in regex. The regex engine is parsing the string at each given position therein, and as such, will attempt every option of the pattern until it either matches or fails at that position. If it matches, it will consume those characters and if it fails it will continue to the next position until the end of the string is met.
The keyword here is backtracks. I think Microsoft's documentation does a great job of defining this term (I've bolded the important section):
Backtracking occurs when a regular expression pattern contains
optional quantifiers or alternation constructs, and the regular
expression engine returns to a previous saved state to continue its
search for a match. Backtracking is central to the power of regular
expressions; it makes it possible for expressions to be powerful and
flexible, and to match very complex patterns. At the same time, this
power comes at a cost. Backtracking is often the single most important
factor that affects the performance of the regular expression engine.
Fortunately, the developer has control over the behavior of the
regular expression engine and how it uses backtracking. This topic
explains how backtracking works and how it can be controlled.
The regex engine backtracks to a previous saved state. It cannot forward track to a future saved state, although that would be pretty neat! Since you've specified that your match should end with at (the lazy quantifier precedes it), it will exhaust every regex option until \w{1,2} ending in at proves true.
How can you get around this? Well, the easiest way is probably to use a capture group:
See regex in use here
\w*(\w{1,2}?at)
\w*(\w{1,2}at) # yields same results as above (but in more steps)
\w*(\wat) # yields same results as above (faster method)
\wat # yields same results as above (fastest method)
\b\w{1,2}at\b # perhaps this is what OP is after?
\w* Matches any word character any number of times. This is a fix to allow us to simulate forward tracking (this is not a proper term, just used in the context of the rest of my answer above). It will match as many characters as possible and work its way backwards until a match occurs.
The rest of the pattern the OP already had. In fact, \w{2} will never be met since \w will always only be met once (since the \w* token is greedy), therefore \wat can be used instead \w*(\wat). Perhaps the OP intended to use anchors such as \b in the regex: \b\w{1,2}at\b? This doesn't differ from the original nature of the OP's regex either since making the quantifier lazy would have theoretically yielded the same results in the context of forward tracking (one match of \w would have satisfied \w{1,2}?, thus \w{2} would never be reached).
Second regex has a known pattern to match: Ha for minimum 3 times and maximum 5 but as few as possible. So in this case it never goes beyond 3, the same as (Ha){3}. Engine's satisfied as soon as possible.
(Ha){3,5}? matches the same as below (consider groups as one):
(Ha){3}|(Ha){4}|(Ha){5}
and (Ha){3,5} matches the same as:
(Ha){5}|(Ha){4}|(Ha){3}
So if first side of alternation, in both regexes, is found there is no more try for a new match from engine.
What about \w{1,2}?at? Let's translate it:
(?:\w{1}|\w{2})at
First side of alternation has a priority - when found matching process is done. That's true about \w{1,2}at too:
(?:\w{2}|\w{1})at
Note: if first side doesn't match, engine goes with other sides in order.
So basically I want to reformat a 10 digit number like so:
1234567890 --> (123) 456-7890
A long way to do this would be to have each number be its own capture group and then back-reference each one individually:
'([0-9])([0-9])...([0-9])' --> (\1\2\3) \4\5\6-\7\8\9\10
This seems unnecessary and verbose, but when I try the following
'([0-9]){10}'
There appears to be only one back-reference and its of the last digit in the number.
Is there is a more elegant way to reference each character as its own capture group?
Thanks!
The following pattern will do the job: ^(\d{3})(\d{3})(\d{4})$
^(\d{3}): beginning of the string, then exactly 3 digits
(\d{3}): exactly 3 digits
(\d{4})$: exactly 4 digits, then end of the string.
Then replace by: (\1) \2-\3
Although the other answer with its example regex patterns hopefully shed light on the correct application of capture groups, it does not directly answer the question. If you fail to understand how regular expressions work (capture groups in particular), you may find yourself wanting to do the same thing with a different pattern in the future.
Is there is a more elegant way to reference each character as its own
capture group?
The initial answer is "No", there is no way to reference an individual capture of a single capture group using traditional replacement syntax - regardless of whether it is a single digit or any other capture group. Consider that you indicate a precise number of matches with {10} and it seems perfectly reasonable to be able to access each capture. But what if you had indicated a variable number of matches with + or {,3}? There would be no well-defined way of knowing how many possible captures occurred. If the same regex pattern had had more capture groups following the "repeated" capture group, there would be no way of correctly referencing the later groups. Example: Given the pattern ([a-z])+(\d){3}, the first capture group could match 4 letters one time, then the next time match 11 letters. If you wanted to refer to the captured digits, how would you do that? You could not, since \1, \2, \3, ... would all be reserved for possible capture instances of the first group.
But the inability of basic regular expressions syntax to do what you want does not remove the validity of your question, nor does it necessarily place the solution outside the realm of many regular expression implementations. Various regex implementations (i.e. language syntax and regex libraries) resolve this limitation by facilitating regex matching with various objects for accessing repeated captures. (c# and .Net regex library is one example, like match.Groups[1].Captures[3]) So even though you can't use basic replacement patterns to get want you want, the answer is often "Yes", depending on the specific implementation.
I keep bumping into situations where I need to capture a number of tokens from a string and after countless tries I couldn't find a way to simplify the process.
So let's say the text is:
start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end
This example has 8 items inside, but say it could have between 3 and 10 items.
I'd ideally like something like this:
start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end nice and clean BUT it only captures the last match. see here
I usually use something like this in simple situations:
start:(\w+)-(\w+)-(\w+)-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?:end
3 groups mandatory and another 7 optional because of the max 10 limit, but this doesn't look 'nice' and it would be a pain to write and track if the max limit was 100 and the matches were more complex. demo
And the best I could do so far:
start:(\w+)-((?1))-((?1))-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?:end
shorter especially if the matches are complex but still long. demo
Anyone managed to make it work as a 1 regex-only solution without programming?
I'm mostly interested on how can this be done in PCRE but other flavors would be ok too.
Update:
The purpose is to validate a match and capture individual tokens inside match 0 by RegEx alone, without any OS/Software/Programming-Language limitation
Update 2 (bounty):
With #nhahtdh's help I got to the RegExp below by using \G:
(?:start:(?=(?:[\w]+(?:-|(?=:end))){3,10}:end)|(?!^)\G-)([\w]+)
demo even shorter, but can be described without repeating code
I'm also interested in the ECMA flavor and as it doesn't support \G wondering if there's another way, especially without using /g modifier.
Read this first!
This post is to show the possibility rather than endorsing the "everything regex" approach to problem. The author has written 3-4 variations, each has subtle bug that are tricky to detect, before reaching the current solution.
For your specific example, there are other better solution that is more maintainable, such as matching and splitting the match along the delimiters.
This post deals with your specific example. I really doubt a full generalization is possible, but the idea behind is reusable for similar cases.
Summary
.NET supports capturing repeating pattern with CaptureCollection class.
For languages that supports \G and look-behind, we may be able to construct a regex that works with global matching function. It is not easy to write it completely correct and easy to write a subtly buggy regex.
For languages without \G and look-behind support: it is possible to emulate \G with ^, by chomping the input string after a single match. (Not covered in this answer).
Solution
This solution assumes the regex engine supports \G match boundary, look-ahead (?=pattern), and look-behind (?<=pattern). Java, Perl, PCRE, .NET, Ruby regex flavors support all those advanced features above.
However, you can go with your regex in .NET. Since .NET supports capturing all instances of that is matched by a capturing group that is repeated via CaptureCollection class.
For your case, it can be done in one regex, with the use of \G match boundary, and look-ahead to constrain the number of repetitions:
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
DEMO. The construction is \w+- repeated, then \w+:end.
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
DEMO. The construction is \w+ for the first item, then -\w+ repeated. (Thanks to ka ᵠ for the suggestion). This construction is simpler to reason about its correctness, since there are less alternations.
\G match boundary is especially useful when you need to do tokenization, where you need to make sure the engine not skipping ahead and matching stuffs that should have been invalid.
Explanation
Let us break down the regex:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?<=-)\G
)
(\w+)
(?:-|:end)
The easiest part to recognize is (\w+) in the line before last, which is the word that you want to capture.
The last line is also quite easy to recognize: the word to be matched may be followed by - or :end.
I allow the regex to freely start matching anywhere in the string. In other words, start:...:end can appear anywhere in the string, and any number of times; the regex will simply match all the words. You only need to process the array returned to separate where the matched tokens actually come from.
As for the explanation, the beginning of the regex checks for the presence of the string start:, and the following look-ahead checks that the number of words is within specified limit and it ends with :end. Either that, or we check that the character before the previous match is a -, and continue from previous match.
For the other construction:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?!^)\G-
)
(\w+)
Everything is almost the same, except that we match start:\w+ first before matching the repetition of the form -\w+. In contrast to the first construction, where we match start:\w+- first, and the repeated instances of \w+- (or \w+:end for the last repetition).
It is quite tricky to make this regex works for matching in middle of the string:
We need to check the number of words between start: and :end (as part of the requirement of the original regex).
\G matches the beginning of the string also! (?!^) is needed to prevent this behavior. Without taking care of this, the regex may produce a match when there isn't any start:.
For the first construction, the look-behind (?<=-) already prevent this case ((?!^) is implied by (?<=-)).
For the first construction (?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end), we need to make sure that we don't match anything funny after :end. The look-behind is for that purpose: it prevents any garbage after :end from matching.
The second construction doesn't run into this problem, since we will get stuck at : (of :end) after we have matched all the tokens in between.
Validation Version
If you want to do validation that the input string follows the format (no extra stuff in front and behind), and extract the data, you can add anchors as such:
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
(Look-behind is also not needed, but we still need (?!^) to prevent \G from matching the start of the string).
Construction
For all the problems where you want to capture all instances of a repetition, I don't think there exists a general way to modify the regex. One example of a "hard" (or impossible?) case to convert is when a repetition has to backtrack one or more loop to fulfill certain condition to match.
When the original regex describes the whole input string (validation type), it is usually easier to convert compared to a regex that tries to match from the middle of the string (matching type). However, you can always do a match with the original regex, and we convert matching type problem back to validation type problem.
We build such regex by going through these steps:
Write a regex that covers the part before the repetition (e.g. start:). Let us call this prefix regex.
Match and capture the first instance. (e.g. (\w+))
(At this point, the first instance and delimiter should have been matched)
Add the \G as an alternation. Usually also need to prevent it from matching the start of the string.
Add the delimiter (if any). (e.g. -)
(After this step, the rest of the tokens should have also been matched, except the last maybe)
Add the part that covers the part after the repetition (if necessary) (e.g. :end). Let us call the part after the repetition suffix regex (whether we add it to the construction doesn't matter).
Now the hard part. You need to check that:
There is no other way to start a match, apart from the prefix regex. Take note of the \G branch.
There is no way to start any match after the suffix regex has been matched. Take note of how \G branch starts a match.
For the first construction, if you mix the suffix regex (e.g. :end) with delimiter (e.g. -) in an alternation, make sure you don't end up allowing the suffix regex as delimiter.
Although it might theoretically be possible to write a single expression, it's a lot more practical to match the outer boundaries first and then perform a split on the inner part.
In ECMAScript I would write it like this:
'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end'
.match(/^start:([\w-]+):end$/)[1] // match the inner part
.split('-') // split inner part (this could be a split regex as well)
In PHP:
$txt = 'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end';
if (preg_match('/^start:([\w-]+):end$/', $txt, $matches)) {
print_r(explode('-', $matches[1]));
}
Of course you can use the regex in this quoted string.
"(?<a>\\w+)-(?<b>\\w+)-(?:(?<c>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<d>\\w+)(?:-(?<e>\\w+)(?:-(?<f>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<g>\\w+)(?:-(?<h>\\w+)(?:-(?<i>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<j>\\w+))?" \
")?)?)?" \
")?)?)?" \
")"
Is it a good idea? No, I don't think so.
Not sure you can do it in that way, but you can use the global flag to find all of the words between the colons, see:
http://regex101.com/r/gK0lX1
You'd have to validate the number of groups yourself though. Without the global flag you're only getting a single match, not all matches - change {3,10} to {1,5} and you get the result 'sir' instead.
import re
s = "start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end"
print re.findall(r"(\b\w+?\b)(?:-|:end)", s)
produces
['test', 'test', 'lorem', 'ipsum', 'sir', 'doloret', 'etc', 'etc', 'something']
When you combine:
Your observation: any kind of repitition of a single capture group will result in an overwrite of the last capture, thus returning only the last capture of the capture group.
The knowledge: Any kind of capturing based on the parts, instead of the whole, makes it impossible to set a limit on the amount of times the regex engine will repeat. The limit would have to be metadata (not regex).
With a requirement that the answer cannot involve programming (looping), nor an answer that involves simply copy-pasting capturegroups as you've done in your question.
It can be deduced that it cannot be done.
Update: There are some regex engines for which p. 1 is not necessarily true. In that case the regex you have indicated start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end will do the job (source).
Sorry for the confusing title, I could not think of the correct wording. I am trying to understand if there is a way for regex to match different strings, depending on whether a previous capture group was captured or not.
/th?u(e|r)sday/
This matches tuesday, thursday but also thuesday and tursday. Is there any way to indicate in the regex that a part should only match, if a previous part was matched... so I imagine a potential syntax like... (?#:pattern) where # is a number from a capturing group, and if the capturing group captured, then pattern is included, otherwise it is skipped. A similar pattern (!#:pattern) for if the #th group is not captured. This invented syntax is to demonstrate what I am trying to do. With this invented syntax, I could solve my problem above like this...
/t(h)?u(!1:e)(?1:r)sday/
Is there any such syntax in regex to achieve this type of referencing?
This feature does exist in some regex implementations, and the regex from your example would be written like this:
/t(h)?u(?(1)r|e)sday/
Obviously this is not the best example, since /t(hur|ue)sday/ is equivalent and much shorter, but there are cases where this is more useful.
Check out the second to last element in the table of this advanced regex reference page, with additional information on conditionals here.
Syntax:
(?(1)then|else)
Description:
If the first capturing group took part in the match attempt thus far, the "then" part must match for the overall regex to match. If the first capturing group did not take part in the match, the "else" part must match for the overall regex to match.
Example:
(a)?(?(1)b|c) matches ab, the first c and the second c in babxcac
According to the same page, conditionals are supported by the JGsoft engine, Perl, PCRE and the .NET framework.
Why not just use a more specific disjunction?
/t(hur|ue)sday/