Is there a way to set regex to ignore a set of words separated by space?
I have different products names like:
"Matrix 10X, 10 ml + DISPENSER"
"Matrix 10X,10ml + DISPENSER" where the quantity varies
What I'm trying to do is to replace using regex all words except for:
"10 ml" | "10 ML" | "10ml" ---> these are to be ignored
I have found a code to replace all characters except words separated by space (like "10 ml")
https://regex101.com/r/bG8vB4/5
and to replace them when they are together (like "10ml")
https://regex101.com/r/bG8vB4/4
but can find a way to mix them together to keep just "10 ml" OR "10 ML" OR "10ml" and remove other characters up to the end of the string
Regexps are a mathematical model to do efficient computer recognition of strings. As easy as getting a regular expression to match a string if it has any of some words, math demonstrates that the regexp to get a matcher of strings that just matches a string if it has none of those words is possible. The way to get such a regexp, although is far more complex.
On regular expressions theory, a regular language is one that allows you to set a finite automaton from a regular expression, and the automaton that recognizes a string if the original doesn't is feasible by just switching all accept states into non-accepting states. Once done this, the hardest part is to build a regular expression that matches that automaton (that is possible, but the final regular expression is far more complex, in general than the original) This can be solved with an example (a simple one) and you'll see that that is a complex thing (of course, some regexp libraries allow you to use an operand for this, but you don't specify if the one you are using does) One such sample is when you have to recognize a simple C language comment. A comment is a string delimited by the sequences /* and */ but in the inner part, you cannot have the sequence */.
The first approach could be to use the following regexp:
\/\*.*\*\/
but that fails, as the inner regexp includes the recognition of */ as part of it, so /* bla bla bla */ bla bla bla */ will be recognized as a comment in whole (it should end at the first */) so wee need a regexp that recognizes anything but not something that includes */
Such subexpression is:
([^*]|\*[^/])*
which means and undefinite concatenation of characters different that *, or sequences that, including the first character as * are not followed by /. If you follow that concatenation, you'll see that it's impossible to form a sequence */ leading to our final regexp:
\/\*([^*]|\*[^/])*\*\/
(now you see how the things complicate)
To extend this to a single word (as word, more than two letters) you have to consider that you can allow:
([^w]|w[^o]|wo[^r]|wor[^d])*
in the set, and if you have two words (like foo and bar) you have to write:
([^f]|f[^o]|fo[^o]|[^b]|b[^a]|ba[^r])*
meaning that for each word you have such regexps, making the final regexp a bit complicated. Also, there can be interactions between words if some can be the prefix to another or some have the same prefix chars. This also can have the problem that the compilation of regexps into finite automata has produced many libraries that consider the | operator non conmutative and resolve them in a non conmutative way, leading to erroneous results.
You have not explained also what you mean with ignoring. If you mean matching them and pass around, is different to mean to ignore the whole line they could appear on. The regexps then (an the definition of the problem you need to solve is quite different ---my explanation was in the sense of rejecting a full sentence if it has any of the words on it, which probably is not what you mean) So please, explain (in your question) what do you mean with:
accepting you have matched a sentence containing a word.
rejecting such a sentence.
what are you rejecting (or ignoring) at all.
Rejecting just a word, is simply selecting a sencence that contains that word, and mark the word to be able to pass over it. But that's a different problem, and it requires to select sentences that do have the word.
Related
I am trying to use FLEX to recognize some regular expressions that I need.
What I am looking for is given a set of characters, say [A-Z], I want a regular expression that can match the first letter no matter what it is, followed by a second letter that can be anything in [A-Z] besides the first letter.
For example, if I give you AB, you match it but if I give you AA you don't. So I am kind of looking for a regex that's something like
[A-Z][A-Z^Besides what was picked in the first set].
How could this be implemented for more occurrences of letters? Say if I want to match 3 letters without each new letter being anything from the previous ones. For instance ABC but not AAB.
Thank you!
(Mathematical) regular expressions have no context. In (f)lex -- where regular expressions are actually regular, unlike most regex libraries -- there is no such thing as a back-reference, positive or negative.
So the only way to accomplish your goal with flex patterns is to enumerate the possibilities, which is tedious for two letters and impractical for more. The two letter case would be something like (abbreviated);
A[B-Z]|B[AC-Z]|C[ABD-Z]|D[A-CE-Z]|…|Z[A-Y]
The inverse expression also has 26 cases but is easier to type (and read). You could use (f)lex's first-longest-match rule to make use of it:
AA|BB|CC|DD|…|ZZ { /* Two identical letters */ }
[[:upper:]]{2} { /* This is the match */ }
Probably, neither of those is the best solution. However, I don't think I can give better advice without knowing more specifics. The key is knowing what action you want to take if the letters do match, which you don't specify. And what the other patterns are. (Recall that a lexical scanner is intended to divide the input into tokens, although you are free to ignore a token once it is identified.)
Flex does come with a number of useful features which can be used for more flexible token handling, including yyless (to rescan part or all of the token), yymore (to combine the match with the next token), and unput (to insert a character into the input stream). There is also REJECT, but you should try other solutions first. See the flex manual chapter on actions for more details.
So the simplest solution might be to just match any two capital letters, and then in the action check whether or not they are the same.
Several sources linked below seem to indicate regex wasn't designed for inverse matching - why not?
Recently, while trying to put together an answer for a question about a regex to match everything that was left after a specific pattern, I encountered several issues that left me curious about the limitations of regex.
Suppose we have some string: a simple line of text. I have a regex [a-zA-Z]e that will match one letter, followed by an e. This matches 3 times, on le, ne, and te. What if I want to match everything except patterns that match the regex? Suppose I want to capture a simp, li, of, and xt., including spaces (line breaks optional.) I later learned this behavior is called inverse matching, and shortly after, that it's not something regex easily supports.
I've examined some resources, but couldn't find any concrete answer on why inverse matching isn't "good".
Negative lookaheads appear useful for determining if a matched string does not contain some specific string, and are in fact used in several answers as methods to achieve this behavior (or something similar) - but they seem designed to act as a way to disqualify matches, as opposed to capturing non-matching input.
Negative lookaheads apparently shouldn't try to do this and aren't good at it either, choosing to leave inverse matching to the language they're being used with.
My own attempt at inverse matching was pointed out to be situational and very fragile, and looks convoluted even to me. In the comments, Wiktor Stribizew mentioned that "[...] in Java, you can't write a regex that matches any text other than some multicharacter string. With capturing, something can be done, but it is inefficient[.]"
Capture groups (the other method I was considering) appear to have the potential to dramatically slow the regex in more than one language.
All of these seem to indicate regex wasn't designed for inverse pattern matching, but none of them are immediately obvious as to the reasoning behind that. Why wasn't regex designed with built-in ability to perform inverse pattern matching?
While direct regex, as you pointed out, does not easily support the functionality you want, a regex split, does easily support this. Consider the following two scripts, first in Java and then in Python:
String input = "a simple line of text.";
String[] parts = input.split("[a-z]e");
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(parts));
This prints:
[a simp, li, of , xt.]
In Python, we can try something very similar:
inp = "a simple line of text."
parts = re.split(r'[a-z]e', inp)
print(parts)
This prints:
['a simp', ' li', ' of ', 'xt.']
The secret sauce which is missing in pure regex is that of parsing or iteration. A good programming language, such as the above, will expose an API which can iterate an input string, using a supplied pattern, and rollup the portions from the split pattern.
In a regular expression, I need to know how to match one thing or another, or both (in order). But at least one of the things needs to be there.
For example, the following regular expression
/^([0-9]+|\.[0-9]+)$/
will match
234
and
.56
but not
234.56
While the following regular expression
/^([0-9]+)?(\.[0-9]+)?$/
will match all three of the strings above, but it will also match the empty string, which we do not want.
I need something that will match all three of the strings above, but not the empty string. Is there an easy way to do that?
UPDATE:
Both Andrew's and Justin's below work for the simplified example I provided, but they don't (unless I'm mistaken) work for the actual use case that I was hoping to solve, so I should probably put that in now. Here's the actual regexp I'm using:
/^\s*-?0*(?:[0-9]+|[0-9]{1,3}(?:,[0-9]{3})+)(?:\.[0-9]*)?(\s*|[A-Za-z_]*)*$/
This will match
45
45.988
45,689
34,569,098,233
567,900.90
-9
-34 banana fries
0.56 points
but it WON'T match
.56
and I need it to do this.
The fully general method, given regexes /^A$/ and /^B$/ is:
/^(A|B|AB)$/
i.e.
/^([0-9]+|\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+\.[0-9]+)$/
Note the others have used the structure of your example to make a simplification. Specifically, they (implicitly) factorised it, to pull out the common [0-9]* and [0-9]+ factors on the left and right.
The working for this is:
all the elements of the alternation end in [0-9]+, so pull that out: /^(|\.|[0-9]+\.)[0-9]+$/
Now we have the possibility of the empty string in the alternation, so rewrite it using ? (i.e. use the equivalence (|a|b) = (a|b)?): /^(\.|[0-9]+\.)?[0-9]+$/
Again, an alternation with a common suffix (\. this time): /^((|[0-9]+)\.)?[0-9]+$/
the pattern (|a+) is the same as a*, so, finally: /^([0-9]*\.)?[0-9]+$/
Nice answer by huon (and a bit of brain-twister to follow it along to the end). For anyone looking for a quick and simple answer to the title of this question, 'In a regular expression, match one thing or another, or both', it's worth mentioning that even (A|B|AB) can be simplified to:
A|A?B
Handy if B is a bit more complex.
Now, as c0d3rman's observed, this, in itself, will never match AB. It will only match A and B. (A|B|AB has the same issue.) What I left out was the all-important context of the original question, where the start and end of the string are also being matched. Here it is, written out fully:
^(A|A?B)$
Better still, just switch the order as c0d3rman recommended, and you can use it anywhere:
A?B|A
Yes, you can match all of these with such an expression:
/^[0-9]*\.?[0-9]+$/
Note, it also doesn't match the empty string (your last condition).
Sure. You want the optional quantifier, ?.
/^(?=.)([0-9]+)?(\.[0-9]+)?$/
The above is slightly awkward-looking, but I wanted to show you your exact pattern with some ?s thrown in. In this version, (?=.) makes sure it doesn't accept an empty string, since I've made both clauses optional. A simpler version would be this:
/^\d*\.?\d+$/
This satisfies your requirements, including preventing an empty string.
Note that there are many ways to express this. Some are long and some are very terse, but they become more complex depending on what you're trying to allow/disallow.
Edit:
If you want to match this inside a larger string, I recommend splitting on and testing the results with /^\d*\.?\d+$/. Otherwise, you'll risk either matching stuff like aaa.123.456.bbb or missing matches (trust me, you will. JavaScript's lack of lookbehind support ensures that it will be possible to break any pattern I can think of).
If you know for a fact that you won't get strings like the above, you can use word breaks instead of ^$ anchors, but it will get complicated because there's no word break between . and (a space).
/(\b\d+|\B\.)?\d*\b/g
That ought to do it. It will block stuff like aaa123.456bbb, but it will allow 123, 456, or 123.456. It will allow aaa.123.456.bbb, but as I've said, you'll need two steps if you want to comprehensively handle that.
Edit 2: Your use case
If you want to allow whitespace at the beginning, negative/positive marks, and words at the end, those are actually fairly strict rules. That's a good thing. You can just add them on to the simplest pattern above:
/^\s*[-+]?\d*\.?\d+[a-z_\s]*$/i
Allowing thousands groups complicates things greatly, and I suggest you take a look at the answer I linked to. Here's the resulting pattern:
/^\s*[-+]?(\d+|\d{1,3}(,\d{3})*)?(\.\d+)?\b(\s[a-z_\s]*)?$/i
The \b ensures that the numeric part ends with a digit, and is followed by at least one whitespace.
Maybe this helps (to give you the general idea):
(?:((?(digits).^|[A-Za-z]+)|(?<digits>\d+))){1,2}
This pattern matches characters, digits, or digits following characters, but not characters following digits.
The pattern matches aa, aa11, and 11, but not 11aa, aa11aa, or the empty string.
Don't be puzzled by the ".^", which means "a character followd by line start", it is intended to prevent any match at all.
Be warned that this does not work with all flavors of regex, your version of regex must support (?(named group)true|false).
I am struggling with a little problem concerning regular expressions.
I want to replace all odd length substrings of a specific character with another substring of the same length but with a different character.
All even sequences of the specified character should remain the same.
Simplified example: A string contains the letters a,b and y and all the odd length sequences of y's should be replaced by z's:
abyyyab -> abzzzab
Another possible example might be:
ycyayybybcyyyyycyybyyyyyyy
becomes
zczayybzbczzzzzcyybzzzzzzz
I have no problem matching all the sequences of odd length using a regular expression.
Unfortunately I have no idea how to incorporate the length information from these matches into the replacement string.
I know I have to use backreferences/capture groups somehow, but even after reading lots of documentation and Stack Overflow articles I still don't know how to pursue the issue correctly.
Concerning possible regex engines, I am working with mainly with Emacs or Vim.
In case I have overlooked an easier general solution without a complicated regular expression (e.g. a small and fixed series of simple search and replace commands), this would help too.
Here's how I'd do it in vim:
:s/\vy#<!y(yy)*y#!/\=repeat('z', len(submatch(0)))/g
Explanation:
The regex we're using is \vy#<!y(yy)*y#!. The \v at the beginning turns on the magic option, so we don't have to escape as much. Without it, we would have y\#<!y\(yy\)*y\#!.
The basic idea for this search, is that we're looking for a 'y' y followed by a run of pairs of 'y's,(yy)*. Then we add y#<! to guarantee there isn't a 'y' before our match, and add y\#! to guarantee there isn't a 'y' after our match.
Then we replace this using the eval register, i.e. \=. From :h sub-replace-\=:
*sub-replace-\=* *s/\=*
When the substitute string starts with "\=" the remainder is interpreted as an
expression.
The special meaning for characters as mentioned at |sub-replace-special| does
not apply except for "<CR>". A <NL> character is used as a line break, you
can get one with a double-quote string: "\n". Prepend a backslash to get a
real <NL> character (which will be a NUL in the file).
The "\=" notation can also be used inside the third argument {sub} of
|substitute()| function. In this case, the special meaning for characters as
mentioned at |sub-replace-special| does not apply at all. Especially, <CR> and
<NL> are interpreted not as a line break but as a carriage-return and a
new-line respectively.
When the result is a |List| then the items are joined with separating line
breaks. Thus each item becomes a line, except that they can contain line
breaks themselves.
The whole matched text can be accessed with "submatch(0)". The text matched
with the first pair of () with "submatch(1)". Likewise for further
sub-matches in ().
TL;DR, :s/foo/\=blah replaces foo with blah evaluated as vimscript code. So the code we're evaluating is repeat('z', len(submatch(0))) which simply makes on 'z' for each 'y' we've matched.
I am trying to implement a pattern matching "syntax" and language.
I know of regular expressions but these aren't enough for my scopes.
I have individuated some "mathematical" operators.
In the examples that follow I will suppose that the subject of pattern mathing are character strings but it isn't necessary.
Having read the description bellow: The question is, does any body knows of a mathematical theory explicitating that or any language that takes the same approach implementing it ? I would like to look at it in order to have ideas !
Descprition of approach:
At first we have characters. Characters may be aggregated to form strings.
A pattern is:
a) a single character
b) an ordered group of patterns with the operator matchAny
c) an ordered group of patterns with the operator matchAll
d) other various operators to see later on.
Explanation:
We have a subject character string and a starting position.
If we check for a match of a single character, then if it matches it moves the current position forward by one position.
If we check for a match of an ordered group of patterns with the operator matchAny then it will check each element of the group in sequence and we will have a proliferation of starting positions that will get multiplied by the number of possible matches being advanced by the length of the match.
E.G suppose the group of patterns is { "a" "aba" "ab" "x" "dd" } and the string under examination is:
"Dabaxddc" with current position 2 ( counting from 1 ).
Then applying matchAny with the previous group we have that "a" mathces "aba" matches and "ab" matches while "x" and "dd" do not match.
After having those matches there are 3 starting positions 3 4 5 ( corresponding to "a" "ab" "aba" ).
We may continue our pattern matching by accepting to have more then one starting positions. So now we may continue to the next case under examination and check for a matchAll.
matchAll means that all patterns must match sequentially and are applied sequentially.
subcases of matchAll are match0+ match1+ etc.
I have to add that the same fact to try to ask the question has already helped me and cleared me out some things.
But I would like to know of similar approaches in order to study them.
Please only languages used by you and not bibliography !!!
I suggest you have a look at the paper "Parsing Permutation Phrases". It deals with recognizing a set of things in any order where the "things" can be recognizers themselves. The presentation in the paper might be a little different than what you expect; they don't compile to finite automaton. However, they do give an implementation in a functional language and that should be helpful to you.
Your description of matching strings against patterns is exactly what a compiler does. In particular, your description of multiple potential matches is highly reminiscent of the way an LR parser works.
If the patterns are static and can be described by an EBNF, then you could use an LR parser generator (such as YACC) to generate a recogniser.
If the patterns are dynamic but can still be formulated as EBNF there are other tools that can be applied. It just gets a bit more complicated.
[In Australia at least, Computer Science was a University course in 1975, when I did mine. YACC dates from around 1970 in its original form. EBNF is even older.]