In vim, I'd like to match a regular expression in a search and replace operation, but with exceptions — a list of matches that I want to skip.
For example, suppose I have the text:
-one- lorem ipsum -two- blah blah -three- now is the time -four- the quick brown -five- etc. etc.
(but with lots of other possibilities) and I want to match -\(\w\+\)- and replace it with *\1* but skipping over (not matching) -two- and -four-, so the result would be:
*one* lorem ipsum -two- blah blah *three* now is the time -four- the quick brown *five* etc. etc.
It seems like I should be able to use some kind of assertion (lookbehind, lookahead, something) for this, but I'm coming up blank.
You're looking for a negative lookahead assertion. In Vim, that's done via :help /\#!, like (?!pattern) in Perl.
Basically, you say don't match FOO here, and in general match word characters:
/-\(\%(FOO\)\#!\w\+\)-/
Note how I'm using non-capturing groups (:help /\%(). What's still missing is an assertion on the end, so the above would also exclude -FOOBAR-. As we have a unique end delimiter here, it's easiest to append that:
/-\(\%(FOO-\)\#!\w\+\)-/
Applied to your example, you just need to introduce two branches (for the two exclusions) in place of FOO, and you're done:
/-\(\%(two-\|four-\)\#!\w\+\)-/
Or, by factoring out the duplicated end delimiter:
/-\(\%(\%(two\|four\)-\)\#!\w\+\)-/
This matches any word characters in between dashes, except if those words form either two or four.
The negative lookahead in my other answer is the direct solution, but its syntax is a bit complex (and there can be patterns where the rules for the delimiter are not so simple, and the result then is much less readable).
As you're using substitution, an alternative is to put the selection logic into the replacement part of :substitute. Vim allows a Vimscript expression in there via :help sub-replace-expression.
We have the captured word in submatch(1) (equivalent to \1 in a normal replacement), and now just need to check for the two excluded words; if it's one of those, do a no-op substitution by returning the original full match (submatch(0)), else just return the captured group.
:substitute/-\(\w\+\)-/\=submatch(index(['two', 'four'], submatch(1)) == -1 ? 1 : 0)/g
It's not shorter than the lookahead pattern (well, we could golf the pattern and drop the ternary operator, as a boolean is represented by 0/1, anyway), so here I would still use the pattern. But in general, it's good to know that there's more than one way to do it :-)
Related
Obviously, you can use the | (pipe?) to represent OR, but is there a way to represent AND as well?
Specifically, I'd like to match paragraphs of text that contain ALL of a certain phrase, but in no particular order.
Use a non-consuming regular expression.
The typical (i.e. Perl/Java) notation is:
(?=expr)
This means "match expr but after that continue matching at the original match-point."
You can do as many of these as you want, and this will be an "and." Example:
(?=match this expression)(?=match this too)(?=oh, and this)
You can even add capture groups inside the non-consuming expressions if you need to save some of the data therein.
You need to use lookahead as some of the other responders have said, but the lookahead has to account for other characters between its target word and the current match position. For example:
(?=.*word1)(?=.*word2)(?=.*word3)
The .* in the first lookahead lets it match however many characters it needs to before it gets to "word1". Then the match position is reset and the second lookahead seeks out "word2". Reset again, and the final part matches "word3"; since it's the last word you're checking for, it isn't necessary that it be in a lookahead, but it doesn't hurt.
In order to match a whole paragraph, you need to anchor the regex at both ends and add a final .* to consume the remaining characters. Using Perl-style notation, that would be:
/^(?=.*word1)(?=.*word2)(?=.*word3).*$/m
The 'm' modifier is for multline mode; it lets the ^ and $ match at paragraph boundaries ("line boundaries" in regex-speak). It's essential in this case that you not use the 's' modifier, which lets the dot metacharacter match newlines as well as all other characters.
Finally, you want to make sure you're matching whole words and not just fragments of longer words, so you need to add word boundaries:
/^(?=.*\bword1\b)(?=.*\bword2\b)(?=.*\bword3\b).*$/m
Look at this example:
We have 2 regexps A and B and we want to match both of them, so in pseudo-code it looks like this:
pattern = "/A AND B/"
It can be written without using the AND operator like this:
pattern = "/NOT (NOT A OR NOT B)/"
in PCRE:
"/(^(^A|^B))/"
regexp_match(pattern,data)
The AND operator is implicit in the RegExp syntax.
The OR operator has instead to be specified with a pipe.
The following RegExp:
var re = /ab/;
means the letter a AND the letter b.
It also works with groups:
var re = /(co)(de)/;
it means the group co AND the group de.
Replacing the (implicit) AND with an OR would require the following lines:
var re = /a|b/;
var re = /(co)|(de)/;
You can do that with a regular expression but probably you'll want to some else. For example use several regexp and combine them in a if clause.
You can enumerate all possible permutations with a standard regexp, like this (matches a, b and c in any order):
(abc)|(bca)|(acb)|(bac)|(cab)|(cba)
However, this makes a very long and probably inefficient regexp, if you have more than couple terms.
If you are using some extended regexp version, like Perl's or Java's, they have better ways to do this. Other answers have suggested using positive lookahead operation.
Is it not possible in your case to do the AND on several matching results? in pseudocode
regexp_match(pattern1, data) && regexp_match(pattern2, data) && ...
Why not use awk?
with awk regex AND, OR matters is so simple
awk '/WORD1/ && /WORD2/ && /WORD3/' myfile
The order is always implied in the structure of the regular expression. To accomplish what you want, you'll have to match the input string multiple times against different expressions.
What you want to do is not possible with a single regexp.
If you use Perl regular expressions, you can use positive lookahead:
For example
(?=[1-9][0-9]{2})[0-9]*[05]\b
would be numbers greater than 100 and divisible by 5
In addition to the accepted answer
I will provide you with some practical examples that will get things more clear to some of You. For example lets say we have those three lines of text:
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:29 +0200] // only this + will get selected
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:x9 +0200]
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:29 +020x]
See demo here DEMO
What we want to do here is to select the + sign but only if it's after two numbers with a space and if it's before four numbers. Those are the only constraints. We would use this regular expression to achieve it:
'~(?<=\d{2} )\+(?=\d{4})~g'
Note if you separate the expression it will give you different results.
Or perhaps you want to select some text between tags... but not the tags! Then you could use:
'~(?<=<p>).*?(?=<\/p>)~g'
for this text:
<p>Hello !</p> <p>I wont select tags! Only text with in</p>
See demo here DEMO
You could pipe your output to another regex. Using grep, you could do this:
grep A | grep B
((yes).*(no))|((no).*(yes))
Will match sentence having both yes and no at the same time, regardless the order in which they appear:
Do i like cookies? **Yes**, i do. But milk - **no**, definitely no.
**No**, you may not have my phone. **Yes**, you may go f yourself.
Will both match, ignoring case.
Use AND outside the regular expression. In PHP lookahead operator did not not seem to work for me, instead I used this
if( preg_match("/^.{3,}$/",$pass1) && !preg_match("/\s{1}/",$pass1))
return true;
else
return false;
The above regex will match if the password length is 3 characters or more and there are no spaces in the password.
Here is a possible "form" for "and" operator:
Take the following regex for an example:
If we want to match words without the "e" character, we could do this:
/\b[^\We]+\b/g
\W means NOT a "word" character.
^\W means a "word" character.
[^\We] means a "word" character, but not an "e".
see it in action: word without e
"and" Operator for Regular Expressions
I think this pattern can be used as an "and" operator for regular expressions.
In general, if:
A = not a
B = not b
then:
[^AB] = not(A or B)
= not(A) and not(B)
= a and b
Difference Set
So, if we want to implement the concept of difference set in regular expressions, we could do this:
a - b = a and not(b)
= a and B
= [^Ab]
Obviously, you can use the | (pipe?) to represent OR, but is there a way to represent AND as well?
Specifically, I'd like to match paragraphs of text that contain ALL of a certain phrase, but in no particular order.
Use a non-consuming regular expression.
The typical (i.e. Perl/Java) notation is:
(?=expr)
This means "match expr but after that continue matching at the original match-point."
You can do as many of these as you want, and this will be an "and." Example:
(?=match this expression)(?=match this too)(?=oh, and this)
You can even add capture groups inside the non-consuming expressions if you need to save some of the data therein.
You need to use lookahead as some of the other responders have said, but the lookahead has to account for other characters between its target word and the current match position. For example:
(?=.*word1)(?=.*word2)(?=.*word3)
The .* in the first lookahead lets it match however many characters it needs to before it gets to "word1". Then the match position is reset and the second lookahead seeks out "word2". Reset again, and the final part matches "word3"; since it's the last word you're checking for, it isn't necessary that it be in a lookahead, but it doesn't hurt.
In order to match a whole paragraph, you need to anchor the regex at both ends and add a final .* to consume the remaining characters. Using Perl-style notation, that would be:
/^(?=.*word1)(?=.*word2)(?=.*word3).*$/m
The 'm' modifier is for multline mode; it lets the ^ and $ match at paragraph boundaries ("line boundaries" in regex-speak). It's essential in this case that you not use the 's' modifier, which lets the dot metacharacter match newlines as well as all other characters.
Finally, you want to make sure you're matching whole words and not just fragments of longer words, so you need to add word boundaries:
/^(?=.*\bword1\b)(?=.*\bword2\b)(?=.*\bword3\b).*$/m
Look at this example:
We have 2 regexps A and B and we want to match both of them, so in pseudo-code it looks like this:
pattern = "/A AND B/"
It can be written without using the AND operator like this:
pattern = "/NOT (NOT A OR NOT B)/"
in PCRE:
"/(^(^A|^B))/"
regexp_match(pattern,data)
The AND operator is implicit in the RegExp syntax.
The OR operator has instead to be specified with a pipe.
The following RegExp:
var re = /ab/;
means the letter a AND the letter b.
It also works with groups:
var re = /(co)(de)/;
it means the group co AND the group de.
Replacing the (implicit) AND with an OR would require the following lines:
var re = /a|b/;
var re = /(co)|(de)/;
You can do that with a regular expression but probably you'll want to some else. For example use several regexp and combine them in a if clause.
You can enumerate all possible permutations with a standard regexp, like this (matches a, b and c in any order):
(abc)|(bca)|(acb)|(bac)|(cab)|(cba)
However, this makes a very long and probably inefficient regexp, if you have more than couple terms.
If you are using some extended regexp version, like Perl's or Java's, they have better ways to do this. Other answers have suggested using positive lookahead operation.
Is it not possible in your case to do the AND on several matching results? in pseudocode
regexp_match(pattern1, data) && regexp_match(pattern2, data) && ...
Why not use awk?
with awk regex AND, OR matters is so simple
awk '/WORD1/ && /WORD2/ && /WORD3/' myfile
The order is always implied in the structure of the regular expression. To accomplish what you want, you'll have to match the input string multiple times against different expressions.
What you want to do is not possible with a single regexp.
If you use Perl regular expressions, you can use positive lookahead:
For example
(?=[1-9][0-9]{2})[0-9]*[05]\b
would be numbers greater than 100 and divisible by 5
In addition to the accepted answer
I will provide you with some practical examples that will get things more clear to some of You. For example lets say we have those three lines of text:
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:29 +0200] // only this + will get selected
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:x9 +0200]
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:29 +020x]
See demo here DEMO
What we want to do here is to select the + sign but only if it's after two numbers with a space and if it's before four numbers. Those are the only constraints. We would use this regular expression to achieve it:
'~(?<=\d{2} )\+(?=\d{4})~g'
Note if you separate the expression it will give you different results.
Or perhaps you want to select some text between tags... but not the tags! Then you could use:
'~(?<=<p>).*?(?=<\/p>)~g'
for this text:
<p>Hello !</p> <p>I wont select tags! Only text with in</p>
See demo here DEMO
You could pipe your output to another regex. Using grep, you could do this:
grep A | grep B
((yes).*(no))|((no).*(yes))
Will match sentence having both yes and no at the same time, regardless the order in which they appear:
Do i like cookies? **Yes**, i do. But milk - **no**, definitely no.
**No**, you may not have my phone. **Yes**, you may go f yourself.
Will both match, ignoring case.
Use AND outside the regular expression. In PHP lookahead operator did not not seem to work for me, instead I used this
if( preg_match("/^.{3,}$/",$pass1) && !preg_match("/\s{1}/",$pass1))
return true;
else
return false;
The above regex will match if the password length is 3 characters or more and there are no spaces in the password.
Here is a possible "form" for "and" operator:
Take the following regex for an example:
If we want to match words without the "e" character, we could do this:
/\b[^\We]+\b/g
\W means NOT a "word" character.
^\W means a "word" character.
[^\We] means a "word" character, but not an "e".
see it in action: word without e
"and" Operator for Regular Expressions
I think this pattern can be used as an "and" operator for regular expressions.
In general, if:
A = not a
B = not b
then:
[^AB] = not(A or B)
= not(A) and not(B)
= a and b
Difference Set
So, if we want to implement the concept of difference set in regular expressions, we could do this:
a - b = a and not(b)
= a and B
= [^Ab]
Using Notepad++ I need to find lines that would contain 2 keywords (both).
I've found how to combine 2 regex with a logical 'or' operator.
Example: (searchword1)|(searchword2)
But how do I combine with logical 'and'?
Tried &, &&.. no success.
Example of input:
The CAT goes up and down the ROAD.
The CAT goes up and down the CITY.
Search words: CAT & ROAD
Expected result: line1
If you are looking for a true && operation where a line contains both words in any order then you will want to match both of these lines:
The CAT goes up and down the ROAD.
The ROAD goes up and down the CAT. (poor cat)
In this case you will want to use:
^(?=.*\bCAT\b)(?=.*\bROAD\b).*$
Explanation:
^ start line
$ end line
?= positive look ahead
\b word boundary. Not sure if you want this or not. Remove these if you want to match any part of word, e.g. TheCATgoes up and down theROAD.
(?=) is a positive look ahead. We have two such look aheads, one for anything (*) followed by CAT and one for anything (*) followed by ROAD. There is an implied && between the two lookaheads - both conditions must be satisfied.
Read up on lookarounds here
Find -> Regular expression, then type
(CAT)(.*?)(ROAD)
A simple pattern if only two words are wanted would use the or operator to search for the words in either order:
(CAT.*ROAD)|(ROAD.*CAT)
For more than two words the positive lookahead is probably better.
Just an addition to #acarlon answer, which is the one that worked for me.
To make this work in notepad++ you must make sure you have selected the "matches newline" checkbox as well as the Regular expression mode:
I have problem with regex.
I need to make regex with an exception of a set of specified words, for example: apple, orange, juice.
and given these words, it will match everything except those words above.
applejuice (match)
yummyjuice (match)
yummy-apple-juice (match)
orangeapplejuice (match)
orange-apple-juice (match)
apple-orange-aple (match)
juice-juice-juice (match)
orange-juice (match)
apple (should not match)
orange (should not match)
juice (should not match)
If you really want to do this with a single regular expression, you might find lookaround helpful (especially negative lookahead in this example). Regex written for Ruby (some implementations have different syntax for lookarounds):
rx = /^(?!apple$|orange$|juice$)/
I noticed that apple-juice should match according to your parameters, but what about apple juice? I'm assuming that if you are validating apple juice you still want it to fail.
So - lets build a set of characters that count as a "boundary":
/[^-a-z0-9A-Z_]/ // Will match any character that is <NOT> - _ or
// between a-z 0-9 A-Z
/(?:^|[^-a-z0-9A-Z_])/ // Matches the beginning of the string, or one of those
// non-word characters.
/(?:[^-a-z0-9A-Z_]|$)/ // Matches a non-word or the end of string
/(?:^|[^-a-z0-9A-Z_])(apple|orange|juice)(?:[^-a-z0-9A-Z_]|$)/
// This should >match< apple/orange/juice ONLY when not preceded/followed by another
// 'non-word' character just negate the result of the test to obtain your desired
// result.
In most regexp flavors \b counts as a "word boundary" but the standard list of "word characters" doesn't include - so you need to create a custom one. It could match with /\b(apple|orange|juice)\b/ if you weren't trying to catch - as well...
If you are only testing 'single word' tests you can go with a much simpler:
/^(apple|orange|juice)$/ // and take the negation of this...
This gets some of the way there:
((?:apple|orange|juice)\S)|(\S(?:apple|orange|juice))|(\S(?:apple|orange|juice)\S)
\A(?!apple\Z|juice\Z|orange\Z).*\Z
will match an entire string unless it only consists of one of the forbidden words.
Alternatively, if you're not using Ruby or you're sure that your strings contain no line breaks or you have set the option that ^ and $ do not match on beginnings/ends of lines
^(?!apple$|juice$|orange$).*$
will also work.
Here's some easy copy-paste code that works for more than just exact-words exceptions.
Copy/Paste Code:
In the following regex, ONLY replace the all-caps sections with your regex.
Python regex
pattern = r"REGEX_BEFORE(?>(?P<exceptions_group_1>EXCEPTION_PATTERN)|YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)REGEX_AFTER"
Ruby regex
pattern = /REGEX_BEFORE(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>EXCEPTION_PATTERN)|YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN)(?(<exceptions_group_1>)always(?<=fail)|)REGEX_AFTER/
PCRE regex
REGEX_BEFORE(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>EXCEPTION_PATTERN)|YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)REGEX_AFTER
JavaScript
Impossible as of 6/17/2020, and probably won't be possible in the near future.
Full Examples
REGEX_BEFORE = \b
YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN = \w+
REGEX_AFTER =
EXCEPTION_PATTERN = (apple|orange|juice)
Python regex
pattern = r"\b(?>(?P<exceptions_group_1>(apple|orange|juice))|\w+)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)"
Ruby regex
pattern = /\b(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>(apple|orange|juice))|\w+)(?(<exceptions_group_1>)always(?<=fail)|)/
PCRE regex
\b(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>(apple|orange|juice))|\w+)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)
How does it work?
This uses decently complicated regex, namely Atomic Groups, Conditionals, Lookbehinds, and Named Groups.
The (?> is the start of an atomic group, which means its not allowed to backtrack: which means, If that group matches once, but then later gets invalidated because a lookbehind failed, then the whole group will fail to match. (We want this behavior in this case).
The (?<exceptions_group_1> creates a named capture group. Its just easier than using numbers. Note that the pattern first tries to find the exception, and then falls back on the normal pattern if it couldn't find the exception.
Note that the atomic pattern first tries to find the exception, and then falls back on the normal pattern if it couldn't find the exception.
The real magic is in the (?(exceptions_group_1). This is a conditional asking whether or not exceptions_group_1 was successfully matched. If it was, then it tries to find always(?<=fail). That pattern (as it says) will always fail, because its looking for the word "always" and then it checks 'does "ways"=="fail"', which it never will.
Because the conditional fails, this means the atomic group fails, and because it's atomic that means its not allowed to backtrack (to try to look for the normal pattern) because it already matched the exception.
This is definitely not how these tools were intended to be used, but it should work reliably and efficiently.
Exact answer to the original question in Ruby
/\b(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>(apple|orange|juice))|\w+)(?(<exceptions_group_1>)always(?<=fail)|)/
Unlike other methods, this one can be modified to reject any pattern such as any word not containing the sub-string "apple","orange", or "juice".
/\b(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>\w*(apple|orange|juice))|\w+)(?(<exceptions_group_1>)always(?<=fail)|)/
Something like (PHP)
$input = "The orange apple gave juice";
if(preg_match("your regex for validating") && !preg_match("/apple|orange|juice/", $input))
{
// it's ok;
}
else
{
//throw validation error
}
Obviously, you can use the | (pipe?) to represent OR, but is there a way to represent AND as well?
Specifically, I'd like to match paragraphs of text that contain ALL of a certain phrase, but in no particular order.
Use a non-consuming regular expression.
The typical (i.e. Perl/Java) notation is:
(?=expr)
This means "match expr but after that continue matching at the original match-point."
You can do as many of these as you want, and this will be an "and." Example:
(?=match this expression)(?=match this too)(?=oh, and this)
You can even add capture groups inside the non-consuming expressions if you need to save some of the data therein.
You need to use lookahead as some of the other responders have said, but the lookahead has to account for other characters between its target word and the current match position. For example:
(?=.*word1)(?=.*word2)(?=.*word3)
The .* in the first lookahead lets it match however many characters it needs to before it gets to "word1". Then the match position is reset and the second lookahead seeks out "word2". Reset again, and the final part matches "word3"; since it's the last word you're checking for, it isn't necessary that it be in a lookahead, but it doesn't hurt.
In order to match a whole paragraph, you need to anchor the regex at both ends and add a final .* to consume the remaining characters. Using Perl-style notation, that would be:
/^(?=.*word1)(?=.*word2)(?=.*word3).*$/m
The 'm' modifier is for multline mode; it lets the ^ and $ match at paragraph boundaries ("line boundaries" in regex-speak). It's essential in this case that you not use the 's' modifier, which lets the dot metacharacter match newlines as well as all other characters.
Finally, you want to make sure you're matching whole words and not just fragments of longer words, so you need to add word boundaries:
/^(?=.*\bword1\b)(?=.*\bword2\b)(?=.*\bword3\b).*$/m
Look at this example:
We have 2 regexps A and B and we want to match both of them, so in pseudo-code it looks like this:
pattern = "/A AND B/"
It can be written without using the AND operator like this:
pattern = "/NOT (NOT A OR NOT B)/"
in PCRE:
"/(^(^A|^B))/"
regexp_match(pattern,data)
The AND operator is implicit in the RegExp syntax.
The OR operator has instead to be specified with a pipe.
The following RegExp:
var re = /ab/;
means the letter a AND the letter b.
It also works with groups:
var re = /(co)(de)/;
it means the group co AND the group de.
Replacing the (implicit) AND with an OR would require the following lines:
var re = /a|b/;
var re = /(co)|(de)/;
You can do that with a regular expression but probably you'll want to some else. For example use several regexp and combine them in a if clause.
You can enumerate all possible permutations with a standard regexp, like this (matches a, b and c in any order):
(abc)|(bca)|(acb)|(bac)|(cab)|(cba)
However, this makes a very long and probably inefficient regexp, if you have more than couple terms.
If you are using some extended regexp version, like Perl's or Java's, they have better ways to do this. Other answers have suggested using positive lookahead operation.
Is it not possible in your case to do the AND on several matching results? in pseudocode
regexp_match(pattern1, data) && regexp_match(pattern2, data) && ...
Why not use awk?
with awk regex AND, OR matters is so simple
awk '/WORD1/ && /WORD2/ && /WORD3/' myfile
The order is always implied in the structure of the regular expression. To accomplish what you want, you'll have to match the input string multiple times against different expressions.
What you want to do is not possible with a single regexp.
If you use Perl regular expressions, you can use positive lookahead:
For example
(?=[1-9][0-9]{2})[0-9]*[05]\b
would be numbers greater than 100 and divisible by 5
In addition to the accepted answer
I will provide you with some practical examples that will get things more clear to some of You. For example lets say we have those three lines of text:
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:29 +0200] // only this + will get selected
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:x9 +0200]
[12/Oct/2015:00:37:29 +020x]
See demo here DEMO
What we want to do here is to select the + sign but only if it's after two numbers with a space and if it's before four numbers. Those are the only constraints. We would use this regular expression to achieve it:
'~(?<=\d{2} )\+(?=\d{4})~g'
Note if you separate the expression it will give you different results.
Or perhaps you want to select some text between tags... but not the tags! Then you could use:
'~(?<=<p>).*?(?=<\/p>)~g'
for this text:
<p>Hello !</p> <p>I wont select tags! Only text with in</p>
See demo here DEMO
You could pipe your output to another regex. Using grep, you could do this:
grep A | grep B
((yes).*(no))|((no).*(yes))
Will match sentence having both yes and no at the same time, regardless the order in which they appear:
Do i like cookies? **Yes**, i do. But milk - **no**, definitely no.
**No**, you may not have my phone. **Yes**, you may go f yourself.
Will both match, ignoring case.
Use AND outside the regular expression. In PHP lookahead operator did not not seem to work for me, instead I used this
if( preg_match("/^.{3,}$/",$pass1) && !preg_match("/\s{1}/",$pass1))
return true;
else
return false;
The above regex will match if the password length is 3 characters or more and there are no spaces in the password.
Here is a possible "form" for "and" operator:
Take the following regex for an example:
If we want to match words without the "e" character, we could do this:
/\b[^\We]+\b/g
\W means NOT a "word" character.
^\W means a "word" character.
[^\We] means a "word" character, but not an "e".
see it in action: word without e
"and" Operator for Regular Expressions
I think this pattern can be used as an "and" operator for regular expressions.
In general, if:
A = not a
B = not b
then:
[^AB] = not(A or B)
= not(A) and not(B)
= a and b
Difference Set
So, if we want to implement the concept of difference set in regular expressions, we could do this:
a - b = a and not(b)
= a and B
= [^Ab]