Imagine i have a sequence of files, e.g.:
...
segment8_400_av.ts
segment9_400_av.ts
segment10_400_av.ts
segment11_400_av.ts
segment12_400_av.ts
...
When the filenames are known, i can match against the filenames with a regular expression like:
/segment(\d+)_400_av\.ts/
Because i know the incremental pattern.
But what would be a generic approach to this? I mean how can i take two file names out of the list, compare them and find out where in the file name the counting part is, taking into account any other digits that can occur in the filename (the 400 in this case)?
Goal: What i want to do is to run the script against various file sequences to check for example for missing files, so this should be the first step to find out the numbering scheme. File sequences can occur in many different fashions, e.g.:
test_1.jpg (simple counting suffix)
test_2.jpg
...
or
segment9_400_av.ts (counting part inbetween, with other static digits)
segment10_400_av.ts
...
or
01_trees_00008.dpx (padded with zeros)
01_trees_00009.dpx
01_trees_00010.dpx
Edit 2: Probably my problem can be described more simple: With a given set of files, i want to:
Find out, if they are a numbered sequence of files, with the rules below
Get the first file number, get the last file number and file count
Detect missing files (gaps in the sequence)
Rules:
As melpomene summarized in his answer, the file names only differ in one substring, which consists only of digits
The counting digits can occur anywhere in the filename
The digits can be padded with 0's (see example above)
I can do #2 and #3, what i am struggling with is #1 as a starting point.
You tagged this question regex, so here's a regex-based solution:
use strict;
use warnings;
my $name1 = 'segment12_400_av.ts';
my $name2 = 'segment10_400_av.ts';
if (
"$name1\0$name2" =~ m{
\A
( \D*+ (?: \d++ \D++ )* ) # prefix
( \d++ ) # numeric segment 1
( [^\0]* ) # suffix
\0 # separator
\1 # prefix
( \d++ ) # numeric segment 2
\3 # suffix
\z
}xa
) {
print <<_EOT_;
Result of comparing "$name1" and "$name2"
Common prefix: $1
Common suffix: $3
Varying numeric parts: $2 / $4
Position of varying numeric part: $-[2]
_EOT_
}
Output:
Result of comparing "segment12_400_av.ts" and "segment10_400_av.ts"
Common prefix: segment
Common suffix: _400_av.ts
Varying numeric parts: 12 / 10
Position of varying numeric part: 7
It assumes that
the strings are different (guard the condition with $name1 ne $name2 && ... if that's not guaranteed)
there's only one substring that's different between the input strings (otherwise it won't find any match)
the differing substring consists of digits only
all digits surrounding the first point of difference are part of the varying increment (e.g. the example above recognizes segment as the common prefix, not segment1)
The idea is to combine the two names into a single string (separated by NUL, which is unambiguous because filenames can't contain \0), then let the regex engine do the hard work of finding the longest common prefix (using greediness and backtracking).
Because we're in a regex, we can get a bit more fancy than just finding the longest common prefix: We can make sure that the prefix doesn't end with a digit (see the segment1 vs. segment case above) and we can verify that the suffix is also the same.
See if this works for you:
use strict;
use warnings;
sub compare {
my ( $f1, $f2 ) = #_;
my #f1 = split /(\d+)/sxm, $f1;
my #f2 = split /(\d+)/sxm, $f2;
my $i = 0;
my $out1 = q{};
my $out2 = q{};
foreach my $p (#f1) {
if ( $p eq $f2[$i] ) {
$out1 .= $p;
$out2 .= $p;
}
else {
$out1 .= sprintf ' ((%s)) ', $p;
$out2 .= sprintf ' ((%s)) ', $f2[$i];
}
$i++;
}
print $out1 . "\n";
print $out2 . "\n";
return;
}
print "Test1:\n";
compare( 'segment8_400_av.ts', 'segment9_400_av.ts' );
print "\n\nTest2:\n";
compare( 'segment999_8_400_av.ts', 'segment999_9_400_av.ts' );
You basically split strings by starting/ending digits, the loop through the items and compare each of the 'pieces'. If they are equal, you accumulate. If not, then you highlight the differences and accumulate.
Output (I'm using ((number)) for the highlight)
Test1:
segment ((8)) _400_av.ts
segment ((9)) _400_av.ts
Test2:
segment999_ ((8)) _400_av.ts
segment999_ ((9)) _400_av.ts
I assume that only the counter differs across the strings
use warnings;
use strict;
use feature 'say';
my ($fn1, $fn2) = ('segment8_400_av.ts', 'segment12_400_av.ts');
# Collect all numbers from all strings
my #nums = map { [ /([0-9]+)/g ] } ($fn1, $fn2);
my ($n, $pos); # which number in the string, at what position
# Find which differ
NUMS:
for my $j (1..$#nums) { # strings
for my $i (0..$#{$nums[0]}) { # numbers in a string
if ($nums[$j]->[$i] != $nums[0]->[$i]) { # it is i-th number
$n = $i;
$fn1 =~ /($nums[0]->[$i])/g; # to find position
$pos = $-[$i];
say "It is $i-th number in a string. Position: $pos";
last NUMS;
}
}
}
We loop over the array with arrayrefs of numbers found in each string, and over elements of each arrayref (eg [8, 400]). Each number in a string (0th or 1st or ...) is compared to its counterpart in the 0-th string (array element); all other numbers are the same.
The number of interest is the one that differs and we record which number in a string it is ($n-th).
Then its position in the string is found by matching it again and using #- regex variable with (the just established) index $n, so the offset of the start of the n-th match. This part may be unneeded; while question edits helped I am still unsure whether the position may or not be useful.
Prints, with position counting from 0
It is 0-th number in a string. Position: 7
Note that, once it is found that it is the $i-th number, we can't use index to find its position; an number earlier in strings may happen to be the same as the $i-th one, in this string.
To test, modify input strings by adding the same number to each, before the one of interest.
Per question update, to examine the sequence (for missing files for instance), with the above findings you can collect counters for all strings in an array with hashrefs (num => filename)
use Data::Dump qw(dd);
my #seq = map { { $num[$_]->[$n] => $fnames[$_] } } 0..$#fnames;
dd \#seq;
where #fnames contains filenames (like two picked for the example above, $fn1 and $fn2). This assumes that the file list was sorted to begin with, or add the sort if it wasn't
my #seq =
sort { (keys %$a)[0] <=> (keys %$b)[0] }
map { { $num[$_]->[$n] => $fnames[$_] } }
0..$#fnames;
The order is maintained by array.
Adding this to the above example (with two strings) adds to the print
[
{ 8 => "segment8_400_av.ts" },
{ 12 => "segment12_400_av.ts" },
]
With this all goals in "Edit 2" should be straighforward.
I suggest that you build a regex pattern by changing all digit sequences to (\d+) and then see which captured values have changed
For instance, with segment8_400_av.ts and
segment9_400_av.ts you would generate a pattern /segment(\d+)_(\d+)_av\.ts/. Note that s/\d+/(\d+)/g will return the number of numeric fields, which you will need for the subsequent check
The first would capture 8 and 400 which the second would capture 9 and 400. 8 is different from 9, so it is in that region of the string where the number varies
I can't really write much code as you don't say what sort of result you want from this process
Related
Assume, I have 2 strings.
$file1_out="astra.abs ::nerve : Costa.br_.cotAlev.ksaf.large.props.fault_check"
$file2_out="astra.abs ::nerve : Costa.br_.cotBlev.ksaf.large.props.fault_check"
You can see that the only difference is A and B in cotAlev & cotBlev in the 2 strings. I would like to compare them and get 2 new variables
$part1="astra.abs ::nerve : Costa.br_."
$part2=".ksaf.large.props.fault_check"
$var="cot_lev" ###removed the mismatching character
That is break till first unequal word and split into 3. How can I do this use regex in PERL
I'm new to perl and used loop concept common in C here to solve this. I've achieved this by breaking strings into characters into comparing each and then combining them accordingly into 3 variables. But i was told that there were easier ways to do this. There are lot of comparisons to be made, so speed does matter...
Have a look at Text::Diff, it may do what you try to do already.
I am not sure how this could be handled with regular expressions. You said you handled this with C looping. You could do something similar in Perl.
my #file1_chars = split //, $file1_out;
my #file2_chars = split //, $file2_out;
This will split up your strings into an array with each entry in the array being a separate character. Now you can loop till you find your first mismatched character:
my $first_mismatched;
for my $char_num ( (0..$#file1_chars) ) {
if ( $file1_chars[$char_num] ne $file2_chars[$char_num] ) {
$first_mismatched = $char_num;
}
}
if ( defined $first_mismatched ) {
say "The two strings stop matching on character # $first_mismatched";
}
This will print out:
The two strings stop matching on character # 34
The $#file1_chars is the last array index of #file1_chars. The (0..$#file1_chars) indexes from the first index entry to the last index entry of #file1_chars.
You could reverse this to go from the last character to the first character:
my $last_mismatched;
for my $char_num ( reverse (0..$#file1_chars) ) {
if ( $file1_chars[$char_num] ne $file2_chars[$char_num] ) {
$last_mismatched = $char_num;
}
}
if ( defined $last_mismatched ) {
say "The two strings restart matching on character # $first_mismatched";
}
I have an Ispell list of english words (nearly 50 000 words), my homework in Perl is to get quickly (like under one minute) list of all strings, that are substrings of some other word. I have tried solution with two foreach cycles comparing all words, but even with some optimalizations, its still too slow. I think, that right solution could be some clever use of regular expressions on array of words. Do you know how to solve this problem quicky (in Perl)?
I have found fast solution, which can find some all these substrings in about 15 seconds on my computer, using just one thread. Basically, for each word, I have created array of every possible substrings (eliminating substrings which differs only in "s" or "'s" endings):
#take word and return list of all valid substrings
sub split_to_all_valid_subwords {
my $word = $_[0];
my #split_list;
my ($i, $j);
for ($i = 0; $i < length($word); ++$i){
for ($j = 1; $j <= length($word) - $i; ++$j){
unless
(
($j == length($word)) or
($word =~ m/s$/ and $i == 0 and $j == length($word) - 1) or
($word =~ m/\'s$/ and $i == 0 and $j == length($word) - 2)
)
{
push(#split_list, substr($word, $i, $j));
}
}
}
return #split_list;
}
Then I just create list of all candidates for substrings and make intersection with words:
my #substring_candidates;
foreach my $word (#words) {
push( #substring_candidates, split_to_all_valid_subwords($word));
}
#make intersection between substring candidates and words
my %substring_candidates=map{$_ =>1} #substring_candidates;
my %words=map{$_=>1} #words;
my #substrings = grep( $substring_candidates{$_}, #words );
Now in substrings I have array of all words, that are substrings of some other words.
Perl regular expressions will optimize patterns like foo|bar|baz into an Aho-Corasick match - up to a certain limit of total compiled regex length. Your 50000 words will probably exceed that length, but could be broken into smaller groups. (Indeed, you probably want to break them up by length and only check words of length N for containing words of length 1 through N-1.)
Alternatively, you could just implement Aho-Corasick in your perl code - that's kind of fun to do.
update
Ondra supplied a beautiful solution in his answer; I leave my post here as an example of overthinking a problem and failed optimisation techniques.
My worst case kicks in for a word that doesn't match any other word in the input. In that case, it goes quadratic. The OPT_PRESORT was a try to advert the worst case for most words. The OPT_CONSECUTIVE was a linear-complexity filter that reduced the total number of items in the main part of the algorithm, but it is just a constant factor when considering the complexity. However, it is still useful with Ondras algorithm and saves a few seconds, as building his split list is more expensive than comparing two consecutive words.
I updated the code below to select ondras algorithm as a possible optimisation. Paired with zero threads and the presort optimisation, it yields maximum performance.
I would like to share a solution I coded. Given an input file, it outputs all those words that are a substring of any other word in the same input file. Therefore, it computes the opposite of ysth's ideas, but I took the idea of optimisation #2 from his answer. There are the following three main optimisations that can be deactivated if required.
Multithreading
The questions "Is word A in list L? Is word B in L?" can be easily parallelised.
Pre-sorting all the words for their length
I create an array that points to the list of all words that are longer than a certain length, for every possible length. For long words, this can cut down the number of possible words dramatically, but it trades quite a lot of space, as one word of length n appears in all lists from length 1 to length n.
Testing consecutive words
In my /usr/share/dict/words, most consecutive lines look quite similar:
Abby
Abby's
for example. As every word that would match the first word also matches the second one, I immediately add the first word to the list of matching words, and only keep the second word for further testing. This saved about 30% of words in my test cases. Because I do that before optimisation No 2, this also saves a lot of space. Another trade-off is that the output will not be sorted.
The script itself is ~120 lines long; I explain each sub before showing it.
head
This is just a standard script header for multithreading. Oh, and you need perl 5.10 or better to run this. The configuration constants define the optimisation behaviour. Add the number of processors of your machine in that field. The OPT_MAX variable can take the number of words you want to process, however this is evaluated after the optimisations have taken place, so the easy words will already have been caught by the OPT_CONSECUTIVE optimisation. Adding anything there will make the script seemingly slower. $|++ makes sure that the status updates are shown immediately. I exit after the main is executed.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict; use warnings; use feature qw(say); use threads;
$|=1;
use constant PROCESSORS => 0; # (false, n) number of threads
use constant OPT_MAX => 0; # (false, n) number of words to check
use constant OPT_PRESORT => 0; # (true / false) sorts words by length
use constant OPT_CONSECUTIVE => 1; # (true / false) prefilter data while loading
use constant OPT_ONDRA => 1; # select the awesome Ondra algorithm
use constant BLABBER_AT => 10; # (false, n) print progress at n percent
die q(The optimisations Ondra and Presort are mutually exclusive.)
if OPT_PRESORT and OPT_ONDRA;
exit main();
main
Encapsulates the main logic, and does multi-threading. The output of n words will be matched will be considerably smaller than the number of input words, if the input was sorted. After I have selected all matched words, I print them to STDOUT. All status updates etc. are printed to STDERR, so that they don't interfere with the output.
sub main {
my #matching; # the matching words.
my #words = load_words(\#matching); # the words to be searched
say STDERR 0+#words . " words to be matched";
my $prepared_words = prepare_words(#words);
# do the matching, possibly multithreading
if (PROCESSORS) {
my #threads =
map {threads->new(
\&test_range,
$prepared_words,
#words[$$_[0] .. $$_[1]] )
} divide(PROCESSORS, OPT_MAX || 0+#words);
push #matching, $_->join for #threads;
} else {
push #matching, test_range(
$prepared_words,
#words[0 .. (OPT_MAX || 0+#words)-1]);
}
say STDERR 0+#matching . " words matched";
say for #matching; # print out the matching words.
0;
}
load_words
This reads all the words from the input files which were supplied as command line arguments. Here the OPT_CONSECUTIVE optimisation takes place. The $last word is either put into the list of matching words, or into the list of words to be matched later. The -1 != index($a, $b) decides if the word $b is a substring of word $a.
sub load_words {
my $matching = shift;
my #words;
if (OPT_CONSECUTIVE) {
my $last;
while (<>) {
chomp;
if (defined $last) {
push #{-1 != index($_, $last) ? $matching : \#words}, $last;
}
$last = $_;
}
push #words, $last // ();
} else {
#words = map {chomp; $_} <>;
}
#words;
}
prepare_words
This "blows up" the input words, sorting them after their length into each slot, that has the words of larger or equal length. Therefore, slot 1 will contain all words. If this optimisation is deselected, it is a no-op and passes the input list right through.
sub prepare_words {
if (OPT_ONDRA) {
my $ondra_split = sub { # evil: using $_ as implicit argument
my #split_list;
for my $i (0 .. length $_) {
for my $j (1 .. length($_) - ($i || 1)) {
push #split_list, substr $_, $i, $j;
}
}
#split_list;
};
return +{map {$_ => 1} map &$ondra_split(), #_};
} elsif (OPT_PRESORT) {
my #prepared = ([]);
for my $w (#_) {
push #{$prepared[$_]}, $w for 1 .. length $w;
}
return \#prepared;
} else {
return [#_];
}
}
test
This tests if the word $w is a substring in any of the other words. $wbl points to the data structure that was created by the previous sub: Either a flat list of words, or the words sorted by length. The appropriate algorithm is then selected. Nearly all of the running time is spent in this loop. Using index is much faster than using a regex.
sub test {
my ($w, $wbl) = #_;
my $l = length $w;
if (OPT_PRESORT) {
for my $try (#{$$wbl[$l + 1]}) {
return 1 if -1 != index $try, $w;
}
} else {
for my $try (#$wbl) {
return 1 if $w ne $try and -1 != index $try, $w;
}
}
return 0;
}
divide
This just encapsulates an algorithm that guarantees a fair distribution of $items items into $parcels buckets. It outputs the bounds of a range of items.
sub divide {
my ($parcels, $items) = #_;
say STDERR "dividing $items items into $parcels parcels.";
my ($min_size, $rest) = (int($items / $parcels), $items % $parcels);
my #distributions =
map [
$_ * $min_size + ($_ < $rest ? $_ : $rest),
($_ + 1) * $min_size + ($_ < $rest ? $_ : $rest - 1)
], 0 .. $parcels - 1;
say STDERR "range division: #$_" for #distributions;
return #distributions;
}
test_range
This calls test for each word in the input list, and is the sub that is multithreaded. grep selects all those elements in the input list where the code (given as first argument) return true. It also regulary outputs a status message like thread 2 at 10% which makes waiting for completition much easier. This is a psychological optimisation ;-).
sub test_range {
my $wbl = shift;
if (BLABBER_AT) {
my $range = #_;
my $step = int($range / 100 * BLABBER_AT) || 1;
my $i = 0;
return
grep {
if (0 == ++$i % $step) {
printf STDERR "... thread %d at %2d%%\n",
threads->tid,
$i / $step * BLABBER_AT;
}
OPT_ONDRA ? $wbl->{$_} : test($_, $wbl)
} #_;
} else {
return grep {OPT_ONDRA ? $wbl->{$_} : test($_, $wbl)} #_;
}
}
invocation
Using bash, I invoked the script like
$ time (head -n 1000 /usr/share/dict/words | perl script.pl >/dev/null)
Where 1000 is the number of lines I wanted to input, dict/words was the word list I used, and /dev/null is the place I want to store the output list, in this case, throwing the output away. If the whole file should be read, it can be passed as an argument, like
$ perl script.pl input-file >output-file
time just tells us how long the script ran. Using 2 slow processors and 50000 words, it executed in just over two minutes in my case, which is actually quite good.
update: more like 6–7 seconds now, with the Ondra + Presort optimisation, and no threading.
further optimisations
update: overcome by better algorithm. This section is no longer completely valid.
The multithreading is awful. It allocates quite some memory and isn't exactly fast. This isn't suprising considering the amount of data. I considered using a Thread::Queue, but that thing is slow like $#*! and therefore is a complete no-go.
If the inner loop in test was coded in a lower-level language, some performance might be gained, as the index built-in wouldn't have to be called. If you can code C, take a look at the Inline::C module. If the whole script were coded in a lower language, array access would also be faster. A language like Java would also make the multithreading less painful (and less expensive).
I would like to tell the difference between a number 1 and string '1'.
The reason that I want to do this is because I want to determine the number of capturing parentheses in a regular expression after a successful match. According the perlop doc, a list (1) is returned when there are no capturing groups in the pattern. So if I get a successful match and a list (1) then I cannot tell if the pattern has no parens or it has one paren and it matched a '1'. I can resolve that ambiguity if there is a difference between number 1 and string '1'.
You can tell how many capturing groups are in the last successful match by using the special #+ array. $#+ is the number of capturing groups. If that's 0, then there were no capturing parentheses.
For example, bitwise operators behave differently for strings and integers:
~1 = 18446744073709551614
~'1' = Î ('1' = 0x31, ~'1' = ~0x31 = 0xce = 'Î')
#!/usr/bin/perl
($b) = ('1' =~ /(1)/);
print isstring($b) ? "string\n" : "int\n";
($b) = ('1' =~ /1/);
print isstring($b) ? "string\n" : "int\n";
sub isstring() {
return ($_[0] & ~$_[0]);
}
isstring returns either 0 (as a result of numeric bitwise op) which is false, or "\0" (as a result of bitwise string ops, set perldoc perlop) which is true as it is a non-empty string.
If you want to know the number of capture groups a regex matched, just count them. Don't look at the values they return, which appears to be your problem:
You can get the count by looking at the result of the list assignment, which returns the number of items on the right hand side of the list assignment:
my $count = my #array = $string =~ m/.../g;
If you don't need to keep the capture buffers, assign to an empty list:
my $count = () = $string =~ m/.../g;
Or do it in two steps:
my #array = $string =~ m/.../g;
my $count = #array;
You can also use the #+ or #- variables, using some of the tricks I show in the first pages of Mastering Perl. These arrays have the starting and ending positions of each of the capture buffers. The values in index 0 apply to the entire pattern, the values in index 1 are for $1, and so on. The last index, then, is the total number of capture buffers. See perlvar.
Perl converts between strings and numbers automatically as needed. Internally, it tracks the values separately. You can use Devel::Peek to see this in action:
use Devel::Peek;
$x = 1;
$y = '1';
Dump($x);
Dump($y);
The output is:
SV = IV(0x3073f40) at 0x3073f44
REFCNT = 1
FLAGS = (IOK,pIOK)
IV = 1
SV = PV(0x30698cc) at 0x3073484
REFCNT = 1
FLAGS = (POK,pPOK)
PV = 0x3079bb4 "1"\0
CUR = 1
LEN = 4
Note that the dump of $x has a value for the IV slot, while the dump of $y doesn't but does have a value in the PV slot. Also note that simply using the values in a different context can trigger stringification or nummification and populate the other slots. e.g. if you did $x . '' or $y + 0 before peeking at the value, you'd get this:
SV = PVIV(0x2b30b74) at 0x3073f44
REFCNT = 1
FLAGS = (IOK,POK,pIOK,pPOK)
IV = 1
PV = 0x3079c5c "1"\0
CUR = 1
LEN = 4
At which point 1 and '1' are no longer distinguishable at all.
Check for the definedness of $1 after a successful match. The logic goes like this:
If the list is empty then the pattern match failed
Else if $1 is defined then the list contains all the catpured substrings
Else the match was successful, but there were no captures
Your question doesn't make a lot of sense, but it appears you want to know the difference between:
$a = "foo";
#f = $a =~ /foo/;
and
$a = "foo1";
#f = $a =~ /foo(1)?/;
Since they both return the same thing regardless if a capture was made.
The answer is: Don't try and use the returned array. Check to see if $1 is not equal to ""
I need to split this string to an array:
$string = "9583526578','9583636523','9673522574','9183556528','9983023378";
Here's how I want my array to look like after splitting:
#foo = [
[9583526578, 9583636523],
[9673522574, 9183556528],
[9983023378]
]
As you might have noticed, I need to split this string into groups of n (2 in this example) but still consider remainder if it doesn't match with n.
How can this be done in Perl?
I've done my research and experimentations but can't seem to get it right after a couple of hours.
Thanks for your time! :)
If you can trust they're all integers, extraction is easy. Just grab all the integers.
my #numbers = $string =~ /(\d+)/g;
Then splitting them into pieces of two...
push #matrix, [splice #numbers, 0, 2] while #numbers;
Not as memory efficient as doing it in place, but simple code (if you grok list processing).
If the only reason you're splitting them into pairs is to process them in pairs, you can destructively iterate through the array...
while( my #pair = splice #numbers, 0, 2 ) {
...
}
Or you can iterate in pairs in one of the rare valid uses of a 3-part for loop in Perl.
for(
my $idx = 0;
my #pair = #numbers[$idx, $idx+1];
$idx += 2;
)
{
...
}
Finally, you can get fancy and use perl5i.
use perl5i::2;
#numbers->foreach( func($first, $second) { ... } );
You can also use List::MoreUtils natatime.
First split on "','" to give you an array, then group the elements as desired.
I would recommend using regex to retrieve the numbers using '([0-9]+)' and just manually building #foo. Or as #MRAB suggested, split is even more straight-forward. Any reason you are aiming at Regex for this?
Tons of different ways. Here's one:
$foo[0] = []; # assuming you really meant an array of arrays of arrays as you showed
while ($string =~ m/([0-9]++)[^0-9]*+([0-9]++)?/g) {
push #{ $foo[0] }, [ $1, $2 // () ];
}
(Did you really mean an array containing just one reference to an array of arrayrefs?)
This should be a reasonably close fit to your desired behavior:
my #foo;
push #foo, [ $1, $2 // () ] while $string =~ / (\d+) (?: \D+ (\d+) ) ? /gx;
I have been looking for a regular expression with Google for an hour or so now and can't seem to work this one out :(
If I have a number, say:
2345
and I want to find any other number with the same digits but in a different order, like this:
2345
For example, I match
3245 or 5432 (same digits but different order)
How would I write a regular expression for this?
There is an "elegant" way to do it with a single regex:
^(?:2()|3()|4()|5()){4}\1\2\3\4$
will match the digits 2, 3, 4 and 5 in any order. All four are required.
Explanation:
(?:2()|3()|4()|5()) matches one of the numbers 2, 3, 4, or 5. The trick is now that the capturing parentheses match an empty string after matching a number (which always succeeds).
{4} requires that this happens four times.
\1\2\3\4 then requires that all four backreferences have participated in the match - which they do if and only if each number has occurred once. Since \1\2\3\4 matches an empty string, it will always match as long as the previous condition is true.
For five digits, you'd need
^(?:2()|3()|4()|5()|6()){5}\1\2\3\4\5$
etc...
This will work in nearly any regex flavor except JavaScript.
I don't think a regex is appropriate. So here is an idea that is faster than a regex for this situation:
check string lengths, if they are different, return false
make a hash from the character (digits in your case) to integers for counting
loop through the characters of your first string:
increment the counter for that character: hash[character]++
loop through the characters of the second string:
decrement the counter for that character: hash[character]--
break if any count is negative (or nonexistent)
loop through the entries, making sure each is 0:
if all are 0, return true
else return false
EDIT: Java Code (I'm using Character for this example, not exactly Unicode friendly, but it's the idea that matters now):
import java.util.*;
public class Test
{
public boolean isSimilar(String first, String second)
{
if(first.length() != second.length())
return false;
HashMap<Character, Integer> hash = new HashMap<Character, Integer>();
for(char c : first.toCharArray())
{
if(hash.get(c) != null)
{
int count = hash.get(c);
count++;
hash.put(c, count);
}
else
{
hash.put(c, 1);
}
}
for(char c : second.toCharArray())
{
if(hash.get(c) != null)
{
int count = hash.get(c);
count--;
if(count < 0)
return false;
hash.put(c, count);
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
for(Integer i : hash.values())
{
if(i.intValue()!=0)
return false;
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String ... args)
{
//tested to print false
System.out.println(new Test().isSimilar("23445", "5432"));
//tested to print true
System.out.println(new Test().isSimilar("2345", "5432"));
}
}
This will also work for comparing letters or other character sequences, like "god" and "dog".
Put the digits of each number in two arrays, sort the arrays, find out if they hold the same digits at the same indices.
RegExes are not the right tool for this task.
You could do something like this to ensure the right characters and length
[2345]{4}
Ensuring they only exist once is trickier and why this is not suited to regexes
(?=.*2.*)(?=.*3.*)(?=.*4.*)(?=.*5.*)[2345]{4}
The simplest regular expression is just all 24 permutations added up via the or operator:
/2345|3245|5432|.../;
That said, you don't want to solve this with a regex if you can get away with it. A single pass through the two numbers as strings is probably better:
1. Check the string length of both strings - if they're different you're done.
2. Build a hash of all the digits from the number you're matching against.
3. Run through the digits in the number you're checking. If you hit a match in the hash, mark it as used. Keep going until you don't get an unused match in the hash or run out of items.
I think it's very simple to achieve if you're OK with matching a number that doesn't use all of the digits. E.g. if you have a number 1234 and you accept a match with the number of 1111 to return TRUE;
Let me use PHP for an example as you haven't specified what language you use.
$my_num = 1245;
$my_pattern = '/[' . $my_num . ']{4}/'; // this resolves to pattern: /[1245]{4}/
$my_pattern2 = '/[' . $my_num . ']+/'; // as above but numbers can by of any length
$number1 = 4521;
$match = preg_match($my_pattern, $number1); // will return TRUE
$number2 = 2222444111;
$match2 = preg_match($my_pattern2, $number2); // will return TRUE
$number3 = 888;
$match3 = preg_match($my_pattern, $number3); // will return FALSE
$match4 = preg_match($my_pattern2, $number3); // will return FALSE
Something similar will work in Perl as well.
Regular expressions are not appropriate for this purpose. Here is a Perl script:
#/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $src = '2345';
my #test = qw( 3245 5432 5542 1234 12345 );
my $canonical = canonicalize( $src );
for my $candidate ( #test ) {
next unless $canonical eq canonicalize( $candidate );
print "$src and $candidate consist of the same digits\n";
}
sub canonicalize { join '', sort split //, $_[0] }
Output:
C:\Temp> ks
2345 and 3245 consist of the same digits
2345 and 5432 consist of the same digits