I am trying to catch a series of tags with regex (for use in Atom on Mac):
<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[23]</sup>
So far I mustered this:
<sup.id="cite_ref-\[\d{1,2}\]".class="reference">\[\d{1,2}\]</sup>
I also tried something in the line of:
<sup.id\=\"\=.*(\d{1,2}\])</sup>
And this catches all of the stuff, but it doesn't stop on first iteration, but keeps on moving:
<sup.*>(\d{1,2}\])</sup>
But it doesn't work. What am I doing wrong?
Regex is character sensitive, an extra or lacking one ruins whole process. Having that said, you have many like \=\"\=. Besides, you should use a non-greedy or restrictive match. Basically you are doing this:
<sup[^>]*>\[\d+\]</sup>
Live demo
Related
As you know, Google links can be pretty unwieldy:
https://www.google.com/search?q=some+search+here&source=hp&newwindow=1&ei=A_23ssOllsUx&oq=some+se....
I have MANY Google links saved that I would like to clean up to make them look like so:
https://www.google.com/search?q=some+search+here
The only issue is that I cannot figure out the correct regex pattern for Vim to do this.
I figure it must be something like this:
:%s/&source=[^&].*//
:%s/&source=[^&].*[^&]//
:%s/&source=.*[^&]//
But none of these are working; they start at &source, and replace until the end of the line.
Also, the search?q=some+search+here can appear anywhere after the .com/, so I cannot rely on it being in the same place every time.
So, what is the correct Vim regex pattern to use in order to clean up these links?
Your example can easily be dealt with by using a very simple pattern:
:%s/&.*
because you want to keep everything that comes before the second parameter, which is marked by the first & in the string.
But, if the q parameter can be anywhere in the query string, as in:
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&newwindow=1&q=some+search+here&ei=A_23ssOllsUx&oq=some+se....
then no amount of capturing or whatnot will be enough to cover every possible case with a single pattern, let alone a readable one. At this point, scripting is really the only reasonable approach, preferably with a language that understands URLs.
--- EDIT ---
Hmm, scratch that. The following seems to work across the board:
:%s#^\(https://www.google.com/search?\)\(.*\)\(q=.\{-}\)&.*#\1\3
We use # as separator because of the many / in a typical URL.
We capture a first group, up to and including the ? that marks the beginning of the query string.
We match whatever comes between the ? and the first occurrence of q= without capturing it.
We capture a second group, the q parameter, up to and excluding the next &.
We replace the whole thing with the first capture group followed by the second capture group.
I want here to submit a very specific performance problem that i want to understand.
Goal
I'm trying to validate a custom synthax with a regex. Usually, i'm not encountering performance issues, so i like to use it.
Case
The regex:
^(\{[^\][{}(),]+\}\s*(\[\s*(\[([^\][{}(),]+\s*(\(\s*([^\][{}(),]+\,?\s*)+\))?\,?\s*)+\]\s*){1,2}\]\s*)*)+$
A valid synthax:
{Section}[[actor1, actor2(syno1, syno2)][expr1,expr2]][[actor3,actor4(syno3, syno4)][expr3,expr4]]
You could find the regex and a test text here :
https://regexr.com/3jama
I hope that be sufficient enough, i don't know how to explain what i want to match more than with a regex ;-).
Issue
Applying the regex on valid text is not costing much, it's almost instant.
But when it comes to specific not valid text case, the regexr app hangs. It's not specific to regexr app since i also encountered dramatic performances with my own java code or javascript code.
Thus, my needs is to validate all along the user is typing the text. I can even imagine validating the text on click, but i cannot afford that the app will be hanging if the text submited by the user is structured as the case below, or another that produce the same performance drop.
Reproducing the issue
Just remove the trailing "]" character from the test text
So the invalid text to raise the performance drop becomes:
{Section}[[actor1, actor2(syno1, syno2)][expr1,expr2]][[actor3,actor4(syno3, syno4)][expr3,expr4
Another invalid test could be, and with no permformance drop:
{Section}[[actor1, actor2(syno1, syno2)][expr1,expr2]][[actor3,actor4(syno3, syno4)][expr3,expr4]]]
Request
I'll be glad if a regex guru coming by could explain me what i'm doing wrong, or why my use case isn't adapted for regex.
This answer is for the condensed regex from your comment:
^(\{[^\][{}(),]+\}(\[(\[([^\][{}(),]+(\(([^\][{}(),]+\,?)+\))?\,?)+\]){1,2}\])*)+$
The issues are similar for your original pattern.
You are facing catastrophic backtracking. Whenever the regex engine cannot complete a match, it backtracks into the string, trying to find other ways to match the pattern to certain substrings. If you have lots of ambiguous patterns, especially if they occur inside repetitions, testing all possible variations takes a looooong time. See link for a better explanation.
One of the subpatterns that you use is the following (multilined for better visualisation):
([^\][{}(),]+
(\(
([^\][{}(),]+\,?)+
\))?
\,?)+
That is supposed to match a string like actor4(syno3, syno4). Condensing this pattern a little more, you get to ([^\][{}(),]+,?)+. If you remove the ,? from it, you get ([^\][{}(),]+)+ which is an opening gate to the catasrophic backtracking, as string can be matched in quite a lot of different ways with this pattern.
I get what you try to do with this pattern - match an identifier - and maybe other other identifiers that are separated by comma. The proper way of doing this however is: ([^\][{}(),]+(?:,[^\][{}(),]+)*). Now there isn't an ambiguous way left to backtrack into this pattern.
Doing this for the whole pattern shown above (yes, there is another optional comma that has to be rolled out) and inserting it back to your complete pattern I get to:
^(\{[^\][{}(),]+\}(\[(\[([^\][{}(),]+(\(([^\][{}(),]+(?:,[^\][{}(),]+)*)\))?(?:\,[^\][{}(),]+(\(([^\][{}(),]+(?:,[^\][{}(),]+))*\))?)*)\]){1,2}\])*)+$
Which doesn't catastrophically backtrack anymore.
You might want to do yourself a favour and split this into subpatterns that you concat together either using strings in your actual source or using defines if you are using a PCRE pattern.
Note that some regex engines allow the use of atomic groups and possessive quantifiers that further help avoiding needless backtracking. As you have used different languages in your title, you will have to check yourself, which one is available for your language of choice.
I have a list of the following numbers and want a Regular expression that matches when a number is not in the list.
0,1,2,3,4,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,19,250
I have written the following REGEX statement.
^(?!.*(0|1|2|3|4|9|11|12|13|14|15|16|18|19|250)).*$
The problem is that it correctly gives a match for 5,6,7,8 etc but not for 17 or 251 for example.
I have been testing this on the online REGEX simulators.
This should resolve your issue..
^(?!\D*(0|1|2|3|4|9|11|12|13|14|15|16|18|19|250)\b).*$
In your earlier regex you were basically saying eliminate all numbers that start with 0/1/2/3/4/9!
So your original regex would actually match 54/623/71/88 but not the others. Also the 11-19 and 250 in the list were rendered useless.
Although as others have I would also recommend you to not use regex for this, as I believe it is an overkill and a maintenance nightmare!
Also an extra note "Variable length look arounds are very inefficient too" vs regular checks.
I would do \b\d+\b to get each number in the string and check if they are in your list. It would be way faster.
You can use the discard technique by matching what you do not want and capturing what you really want.
You can use a regex like this:
\b(?:[0-49]|1[1-689]|250)\b|(\d+)
Here you can check a working demo where in blue you have the matches (what you don't want) and in green the content you want. Then you have to grab the content from the capturing group
Working demo
Not sure what regex engine you are using, but here I created a sample using java:
https://ideone.com/B7kLe0
I'm playing around with RegEx but I'm by no means a pro and I can't quite get this to work properly in http://www.regexr.com/
(Being in a rush doesn't help ...)
I have two dozen ".ST" files, basically PLC code which seems to be similar to C syntax. So all the comments are // or (* ... *)
I'm a translator and I'm supposed to translate ONLY the comments, so my thought was to use Find/Replace in Notepad++ and find everything which was NOT a comment, replace it with blank, in order to, in the end, have a document with only comments. So I'm not sure what to do with a RegEx that matches comments, because I don't want to delete those and can't "replace" it with anything... Make any sense???
Thanks so much for your help!
Simple answer
Not what you asked for, but I believe this is what you want to do. All you need is catch the comments and remove them. To do that:
~(?<!\\)//[^\n\r]*|(?<!\\)\(\*.*?(?<!\\)\*\)~sg
will select all the text following // on the line, and all text (multiline) enclosed in (* *). Afterwards you just need to replaced all selection with the empty string "".
For info, (?<! ) patterns are look behind: they're here to make sure the comment's limits aren't escaped. \//I wanna keep this code shouldn't be matched, code (*foo\*)bar*) should select (*foo\*)bar*).
Crazy overkill [shouldn't use]
For the record, and because it is too damn tempting to go for the monstrous regex when there's a simple obvious answer, and because I didn't saw that before way too long... You shouldn't use this.
~(?:^//.*$|\(\*.*?\*\)|([^(\n]+)|(\())~mg
might catch what you you want in variables \1 and \2.
^//.*$ catches lines beginning with // (though you might want to also catch the code before the // in a line resembling cool code //this was cool code)
\(\*.*?\*\) catches anything between (* *) (though not if there's a newline... You could use (?s:\(\*.*?\*\)) if your regex flavor supports it. And it probably isn't speed-optimized)
([^(\n]+]) looks for (and selects) anything ON THIS LINE that isn't an opening parenthesis. This means that multiline code, unsprinkled with comments, will be cut into lines. You may change this behavior with something like (?s:((?:(?!\n/|\().)+)).
(\() matches the open parenthesis that stopped the previous pattern, only if it isn't the beginning of a (* comment.
You can see it in action here: http://regex101.com/r/aX6sF7, but I do believe it can be greatly simplified.
This will match any line starting with //:
^\/\/.*$
This will match anything between * and *:
\*[^\*]*\*
I'm being lazy tonight and don't want to figure this one out. I need a regex to match 'jeremy.miller' and 'scottgu' from the following inputs:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller/archive/2009/08/26/talking-about-storyteller-and-executable-requirements-on-elegant-code.aspx
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2009/08/25/clean-web-config-files-vs-2010-and-net-4-0-series.aspx
Ideas?
Edit
Chris Lutz did a great job of meeting the requirements above. What if these were the inputs so you couldn't use 'archive' in the regex?
http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller/
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/
Would this be what you're looking for?
'/([^/]+)/archive/'
Captures the piece before "archive" in both cases. Depending on regex flavor you'll need to escape the /s for it to work. As an alternative, if you don't want to match the archive part, you could use a lookahead, but I don't like lookaheads, and it's easier to match a lot and just capture the parts you need (in my opinion), so if you prefer to use a lookahead to verify that the next part is archive, you can write one yourself.
EDIT: As you update your question, my idea of what you want is becoming fuzzier. If you want a new regex to match the second cases, you can just pluck the appropriate part off the end, with the same / conditions as before:
'/([^/]+)/$'
If you specifically want either the text jeremy.miller or scottgu, regardless of where they occur in a URL, but only as "words" in the URL (i.e. not scottgu2), try this, once again with the / caveat:
'/(jeremy\.miller|scottgu)/'
As yet a third alternative, if you want the field after the domain name, unless that field is "blogs", it's going to get hairy, especially with the / caveat:
'http://[^/]+/(?:blogs/)?([^/]+)/'
This will match the domain name, an optional blogs field, and then the desired field. The (?:) syntax is a non-capturing group, which means it's just like regular parenthesis, but won't capture the value, so the only value captured is the value you want. (?:) has a risk of varying depending on your particular regex flavor. I don't know what language you're asking for, but I predominantly use Perl, so this regex should pretty much do it if you're using PCRE. If you're using something different, look into non-capturing groups.
Wow. That's a lot of talking about regexes. I need to shut up and post already.
Try this one:
/\/([\w\.]+)\/archive/