Related
This question already has answers here:
Regular expression to match a line that doesn't contain a word
(34 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I know that I can negate group of chars as in [^bar] but I need a regular expression where negation applies to the specific word - so in my example how do I negate an actual bar, and not "any chars in bar"?
A great way to do this is to use negative lookahead:
^(?!.*bar).*$
The negative lookahead construct is the pair of parentheses, with the opening parenthesis followed by a question mark and an exclamation point. Inside the lookahead [is any regex pattern].
Unless performance is of utmost concern, it's often easier just to run your results through a second pass, skipping those that match the words you want to negate.
Regular expressions usually mean you're doing scripting or some sort of low-performance task anyway, so find a solution that is easy to read, easy to understand and easy to maintain.
Solution:
^(?!.*STRING1|.*STRING2|.*STRING3).*$
xxxxxx OK
xxxSTRING1xxx KO (is whether it is desired)
xxxSTRING2xxx KO (is whether it is desired)
xxxSTRING3xxx KO (is whether it is desired)
You could either use a negative look-ahead or look-behind:
^(?!.*?bar).*
^(.(?<!bar))*?$
Or use just basics:
^(?:[^b]+|b(?:$|[^a]|a(?:$|[^r])))*$
These all match anything that does not contain bar.
The following regex will do what you want (as long as negative lookbehinds and lookaheads are supported), matching things properly; the only problem is that it matches individual characters (i.e. each match is a single character rather than all characters between two consecutive "bar"s), possibly resulting in a potential for high overhead if you're working with very long strings.
b(?!ar)|(?<!b)a|a(?!r)|(?<!ba)r|[^bar]
I came across this forum thread while trying to identify a regex for the following English statement:
Given an input string, match everything unless this input string is exactly 'bar'; for example I want to match 'barrier' and 'disbar' as well as 'foo'.
Here's the regex I came up with
^(bar.+|(?!bar).*)$
My English translation of the regex is "match the string if it starts with 'bar' and it has at least one other character, or if the string does not start with 'bar'.
The accepted answer is nice but is really a work-around for the lack of a simple sub-expression negation operator in regexes. This is why grep --invert-match exits. So in *nixes, you can accomplish the desired result using pipes and a second regex.
grep 'something I want' | grep --invert-match 'but not these ones'
Still a workaround, but maybe easier to remember.
If it's truly a word, bar that you don't want to match, then:
^(?!.*\bbar\b).*$
The above will match any string that does not contain bar that is on a word boundary, that is to say, separated from non-word characters. However, the period/dot (.) used in the above pattern will not match newline characters unless the correct regex flag is used:
^(?s)(?!.*\bbar\b).*$
Alternatively:
^(?!.*\bbar\b)[\s\S]*$
Instead of using any special flag, we are looking for any character that is either white space or non-white space. That should cover every character.
But what if we would like to match words that might contain bar, but just not the specific word bar?
(?!\bbar\b)\b\[A-Za-z-]*bar[a-z-]*\b
(?!\bbar\b) Assert that the next input is not bar on a word boundary.
\b\[A-Za-z-]*bar[a-z-]*\b Matches any word on a word boundary that contains bar.
See Regex Demo
Extracted from this comment by bkDJ:
^(?!bar$).*
The nice property of this solution is that it's possible to clearly negate (exclude) multiple words:
^(?!bar$|foo$|banana$).*
I wish to complement the accepted answer and contribute to the discussion with my late answer.
#ChrisVanOpstal shared this regex tutorial which is a great resource for learning regex.
However, it was really time consuming to read through.
I made a cheatsheet for mnemonic convenience.
This reference is based on the braces [], (), and {} leading each class, and I find it easy to recall.
Regex = {
'single_character': ['[]', '.', {'negate':'^'}],
'capturing_group' : ['()', '|', '\\', 'backreferences and named group'],
'repetition' : ['{}', '*', '+', '?', 'greedy v.s. lazy'],
'anchor' : ['^', '\b', '$'],
'non_printable' : ['\n', '\t', '\r', '\f', '\v'],
'shorthand' : ['\d', '\w', '\s'],
}
Just thought of something else that could be done. It's very different from my first answer, as it doesn't use regular expressions, so I decided to make a second answer post.
Use your language of choice's split() method equivalent on the string with the word to negate as the argument for what to split on. An example using Python:
>>> text = 'barbarasdbarbar 1234egb ar bar32 sdfbaraadf'
>>> text.split('bar')
['', '', 'asd', '', ' 1234egb ar ', '32 sdf', 'aadf']
The nice thing about doing it this way, in Python at least (I don't remember if the functionality would be the same in, say, Visual Basic or Java), is that it lets you know indirectly when "bar" was repeated in the string due to the fact that the empty strings between "bar"s are included in the list of results (though the empty string at the beginning is due to there being a "bar" at the beginning of the string). If you don't want that, you can simply remove the empty strings from the list.
I had a list of file names, and I wanted to exclude certain ones, with this sort of behavior (Ruby):
files = [
'mydir/states.rb', # don't match these
'countries.rb',
'mydir/states_bkp.rb', # match these
'mydir/city_states.rb'
]
excluded = ['states', 'countries']
# set my_rgx here
result = WankyAPI.filter(files, my_rgx) # I didn't write WankyAPI...
assert result == ['mydir/city_states.rb', 'mydir/states_bkp.rb']
Here's my solution:
excluded_rgx = excluded.map{|e| e+'\.'}.join('|')
my_rgx = /(^|\/)((?!#{excluded_rgx})[^\.\/]*)\.rb$/
My assumptions for this application:
The string to be excluded is at the beginning of the input, or immediately following a slash.
The permitted strings end with .rb.
Permitted filenames don't have a . character before the .rb.
Is there a simple way to ignore the white space in a target string when searching for matches using a regular expression pattern? For example, if my search is for "cats", I would want "c ats" or "ca ts" to match. I can't strip out the whitespace beforehand because I need to find the begin and end index of the match (including any whitespace) in order to highlight that match and any whitespace needs to be there for formatting purposes.
You can stick optional whitespace characters \s* in between every other character in your regex. Although granted, it will get a bit lengthy.
/cats/ -> /c\s*a\s*t\s*s/
While the accepted answer is technically correct, a more practical approach, if possible, is to just strip whitespace out of both the regular expression and the search string.
If you want to search for "my cats", instead of:
myString.match(/m\s*y\s*c\s*a\*st\s*s\s*/g)
Just do:
myString.replace(/\s*/g,"").match(/mycats/g)
Warning: You can't automate this on the regular expression by just replacing all spaces with empty strings because they may occur in a negation or otherwise make your regular expression invalid.
Addressing Steven's comment to Sam Dufel's answer
Thanks, sounds like that's the way to go. But I just realized that I only want the optional whitespace characters if they follow a newline. So for example, "c\n ats" or "ca\n ts" should match. But wouldn't want "c ats" to match if there is no newline. Any ideas on how that might be done?
This should do the trick:
/c(?:\n\s*)?a(?:\n\s*)?t(?:\n\s*)?s/
See this page for all the different variations of 'cats' that this matches.
You can also solve this using conditionals, but they are not supported in the javascript flavor of regex.
You could put \s* inbetween every character in your search string so if you were looking for cat you would use c\s*a\s*t\s*s\s*s
It's long but you could build the string dynamically of course.
You can see it working here: http://www.rubular.com/r/zzWwvppSpE
If you only want to allow spaces, then
\bc *a *t *s\b
should do it. To also allow tabs, use
\bc[ \t]*a[ \t]*t[ \t]*s\b
Remove the \b anchors if you also want to find cats within words like bobcats or catsup.
This approach can be used to automate this
(the following exemplary solution is in python, although obviously it can be ported to any language):
you can strip the whitespace beforehand AND save the positions of non-whitespace characters so you can use them later to find out the matched string boundary positions in the original string like the following:
def regex_search_ignore_space(regex, string):
no_spaces = ''
char_positions = []
for pos, char in enumerate(string):
if re.match(r'\S', char): # upper \S matches non-whitespace chars
no_spaces += char
char_positions.append(pos)
match = re.search(regex, no_spaces)
if not match:
return match
# match.start() and match.end() are indices of start and end
# of the found string in the spaceless string
# (as we have searched in it).
start = char_positions[match.start()] # in the original string
end = char_positions[match.end()] # in the original string
matched_string = string[start:end] # see
# the match WITH spaces is returned.
return matched_string
with_spaces = 'a li on and a cat'
print(regex_search_ignore_space('lion', with_spaces))
# prints 'li on'
If you want to go further you can construct the match object and return it instead, so the use of this helper will be more handy.
And the performance of this function can of course also be optimized, this example is just to show the path to a solution.
The accepted answer will not work if and when you are passing a dynamic value (such as "current value" in an array loop) as the regex test value. You would not be able to input the optional white spaces without getting some really ugly regex.
Konrad Hoffner's solution is therefore better in such cases as it will strip both the regest and test string of whitespace. The test will be conducted as though both have no whitespace.
This question already has answers here:
Regular expression to match a line that doesn't contain a word
(34 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Ok, so this is something completely stupid but this is something I simply never learned to do and its a hassle.
How do I specify a string that does not contain a sequence of other characters. For example I want to match all lines that do NOT end in '.config'
I would think that I could just do
.*[^(\.config)]$
but this doesn't work (why not?)
I know I can do
.*[^\.][^c][^o][^n][^f][^i][^g]$
but please please please tell me that there is a better way
You can use negative lookbehind, e.g.:
.*(?<!\.config)$
This matches all strings except those that end with ".config"
Your question contains two questions, so here are a few answers.
Match lines that don't contain a certain string (say .config) at all:
^(?:(?!\.config).)*$\r?\n?
Match lines that don't end in a certain string:
^.*(?<!\.config)$\r?\n?
and, as a bonus: Match lines that don't start with a certain string:
^(?!\.config).*$\r?\n?
(each time including newline characters, if present.
Oh, and to answer why your version doesn't work: [^abc] means "any one (1) character except a, b, or c". Your other solution would also fail on test.hg (because it also ends in the letter g - your regex looks at each character individually instead of the entire .config string. That's why you need lookaround to handle this.
(?<!\.config)$
:)
By using the [^] construct, you have created a negated character class, which matches all characters except those you have named. Order of characters in the candidate match do not matter, so this will fail on any string that has any of [(\.config) (or [)gi.\onc(])
Use negative lookahead, (with perl regexs) like so: (?!\.config$). This will match all strings that do not match the literal ".config"
Unless you are "grepping" ... since you are not using the result of a match, why not search for the strings that do end in .config and skip them? In Python:
import re
isConfig = re.compile('\.config$')
# List lst is given
filteredList = [f.strip() for f in lst if not isConfig.match(f.strip())]
I suspect that this will run faster than a more complex re.
As you have asked for a "better way": I would try a "filtering" approach. I think it is quite easy to read and to understand:
#!/usr/bin/perl
while(<>) {
next if /\.config$/; # ignore the line if it ends with ".config"
print;
}
As you can see I have used perl code as an example. But I think you get the idea?
added:
this approach could also be used to chain up more filter patterns and it still remains good readable and easy to understand,
next if /\.config$/; # ignore the line if it ends with ".config"
next if /\.ini$/; # ignore the line if it ends with ".ini"
next if /\.reg$/; # ignore the line if it ends with ".reg"
# now we have filtered out all the lines we want to skip
... process only the lines we want to use ...
I used Regexpal before finding this page and came up with the following solution when I wanted to check that a string doesn't contain a file extension:
^(.(?!\.[a-zA-Z0-9]{3,}))*$ I used the m checkbox option so that I could present many lines and see which of them did or did not match.
so to find a string that doesn't contain another "^(.(?!" + expression you don't want + "))*$"
My article on the uses of this particular regex
I have text that looks like:
My name is (Richard) and I cannot do
[whatever (Jack) can't do] and
(Robert) is the same way [unlike
(Betty)] thanks (Jill)
The goal is to search using a regular expression to find all parenthesized names that occur anywhere in the text BUT in-between any brackets.
So in the text above, the result I am looking for is:
Richard
Robert
Jill
You can do it in two steps:
step1: match all bracket contents using:
\[[^\]]*\]
and replace it with ''
step2: match all the remaining parenthesized names(globally) using:
\([^)]*\)
You didn't say what language you're using, so here's some Python:
>>> import re
>>> REGEX = re.compile(r'(?:[^[(]+|\(([^)]*)\)|\[[^]]*])')
>>> s="""My name is (Richard) and I cannot do [whatever (Jack) can't do] and (Robert) is the same way [unlike (Betty)] thanks (Jill)"""
>>> filter(None, REGEX.findall(s))
The output is:
['Richard', 'Robert', 'Jill']
One caveat is that this does not work with arbitrary nesting. The only nesting it's really designed to work with is one level of parens in square brackets as mentioned in the question. Arbitrary nesting can't be done with just regular expressions. (This is a consequence of the pumping lemma for regular languages.)
The regex looks for chunks of text without brackets or parens, chunks of text enclosed in parens, and chunks of text enclosed in brackets. Only text in parens (not in square brackets) is captured. Python's findall finds all matches of the regex in sequence. In some languages you may need to write a loop to repeatedly match. For non-paren matches, findall inserts an empty string in the result list, so the call to filter removes those.
IF you are using .NET you can do something like:
"(?<!\[.*?)(?<name>\(\w+\))(?>!.*\])"
It's not really the best job for a single regexp - have you considered, for example, making a copy of the string and then deleting everything in between the square brackets instead? It would then be fairly straight forward to extract things from inside the parenthesis. Alternatively, you could write a very basic parser that tokenises the line (into normal text, square bracket text, and parenthesised text, I imagine) and then parses the tree that produces; it'd be more work initially but would make life much simpler if you later want to make the behaviour any more complicated.
Having said that, /(?:(?:^|\])[^\[]*)\((.*?)\)/ does the trick for your test case (but it will almost certainly have some weird behaviour if your [ and ] aren't matched properly, and I'm not convinced it's that efficient).
A quick (PHP) test case:
preg_match_all('/(?:(?:^|\])[^\[]*)\((.*?)\)/', "My name is ... (Jill)", $m);
print(implode(", ", $m[1]));
Outputs:
Richard, Robert, Jill
>>> s="My name is (Richard) and I cannot do [whatever (Jack) can't do (Jill) can] and (Robert) is the same way [unlike (Betty)] thanks (Jill)"
>>> for item in s.split("]"):
... st = item.split("[")[0]
... if ")" in st:
... for i in st.split(")"):
... if "(" in i:
... print i.split("(")[-1]
...
Richard
Robert
Jill
So you want the regex to match the name, but not the enclosing parentheses? This should do it:
[^()]+(?=\)[^\[\]]*(?:\[[^\[\]]*\][^\[\]]*)*$)
As with the other answers, I'm making certain assumptions about your target string, like expecting parentheses and square brackets to be correctly balanced and not nested.
I say it should work because, although I've tested it, I don't know what language/tool you're using to do the regex matching with. We could provide higher-quality answers if we had that info; all regex flavors are not created equal.
This question already has answers here:
Regular expression to match a line that doesn't contain a word
(34 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I know that I can negate group of chars as in [^bar] but I need a regular expression where negation applies to the specific word - so in my example how do I negate an actual bar, and not "any chars in bar"?
A great way to do this is to use negative lookahead:
^(?!.*bar).*$
The negative lookahead construct is the pair of parentheses, with the opening parenthesis followed by a question mark and an exclamation point. Inside the lookahead [is any regex pattern].
Unless performance is of utmost concern, it's often easier just to run your results through a second pass, skipping those that match the words you want to negate.
Regular expressions usually mean you're doing scripting or some sort of low-performance task anyway, so find a solution that is easy to read, easy to understand and easy to maintain.
Solution:
^(?!.*STRING1|.*STRING2|.*STRING3).*$
xxxxxx OK
xxxSTRING1xxx KO (is whether it is desired)
xxxSTRING2xxx KO (is whether it is desired)
xxxSTRING3xxx KO (is whether it is desired)
You could either use a negative look-ahead or look-behind:
^(?!.*?bar).*
^(.(?<!bar))*?$
Or use just basics:
^(?:[^b]+|b(?:$|[^a]|a(?:$|[^r])))*$
These all match anything that does not contain bar.
The following regex will do what you want (as long as negative lookbehinds and lookaheads are supported), matching things properly; the only problem is that it matches individual characters (i.e. each match is a single character rather than all characters between two consecutive "bar"s), possibly resulting in a potential for high overhead if you're working with very long strings.
b(?!ar)|(?<!b)a|a(?!r)|(?<!ba)r|[^bar]
I came across this forum thread while trying to identify a regex for the following English statement:
Given an input string, match everything unless this input string is exactly 'bar'; for example I want to match 'barrier' and 'disbar' as well as 'foo'.
Here's the regex I came up with
^(bar.+|(?!bar).*)$
My English translation of the regex is "match the string if it starts with 'bar' and it has at least one other character, or if the string does not start with 'bar'.
The accepted answer is nice but is really a work-around for the lack of a simple sub-expression negation operator in regexes. This is why grep --invert-match exits. So in *nixes, you can accomplish the desired result using pipes and a second regex.
grep 'something I want' | grep --invert-match 'but not these ones'
Still a workaround, but maybe easier to remember.
If it's truly a word, bar that you don't want to match, then:
^(?!.*\bbar\b).*$
The above will match any string that does not contain bar that is on a word boundary, that is to say, separated from non-word characters. However, the period/dot (.) used in the above pattern will not match newline characters unless the correct regex flag is used:
^(?s)(?!.*\bbar\b).*$
Alternatively:
^(?!.*\bbar\b)[\s\S]*$
Instead of using any special flag, we are looking for any character that is either white space or non-white space. That should cover every character.
But what if we would like to match words that might contain bar, but just not the specific word bar?
(?!\bbar\b)\b\[A-Za-z-]*bar[a-z-]*\b
(?!\bbar\b) Assert that the next input is not bar on a word boundary.
\b\[A-Za-z-]*bar[a-z-]*\b Matches any word on a word boundary that contains bar.
See Regex Demo
Extracted from this comment by bkDJ:
^(?!bar$).*
The nice property of this solution is that it's possible to clearly negate (exclude) multiple words:
^(?!bar$|foo$|banana$).*
I wish to complement the accepted answer and contribute to the discussion with my late answer.
#ChrisVanOpstal shared this regex tutorial which is a great resource for learning regex.
However, it was really time consuming to read through.
I made a cheatsheet for mnemonic convenience.
This reference is based on the braces [], (), and {} leading each class, and I find it easy to recall.
Regex = {
'single_character': ['[]', '.', {'negate':'^'}],
'capturing_group' : ['()', '|', '\\', 'backreferences and named group'],
'repetition' : ['{}', '*', '+', '?', 'greedy v.s. lazy'],
'anchor' : ['^', '\b', '$'],
'non_printable' : ['\n', '\t', '\r', '\f', '\v'],
'shorthand' : ['\d', '\w', '\s'],
}
Just thought of something else that could be done. It's very different from my first answer, as it doesn't use regular expressions, so I decided to make a second answer post.
Use your language of choice's split() method equivalent on the string with the word to negate as the argument for what to split on. An example using Python:
>>> text = 'barbarasdbarbar 1234egb ar bar32 sdfbaraadf'
>>> text.split('bar')
['', '', 'asd', '', ' 1234egb ar ', '32 sdf', 'aadf']
The nice thing about doing it this way, in Python at least (I don't remember if the functionality would be the same in, say, Visual Basic or Java), is that it lets you know indirectly when "bar" was repeated in the string due to the fact that the empty strings between "bar"s are included in the list of results (though the empty string at the beginning is due to there being a "bar" at the beginning of the string). If you don't want that, you can simply remove the empty strings from the list.
I had a list of file names, and I wanted to exclude certain ones, with this sort of behavior (Ruby):
files = [
'mydir/states.rb', # don't match these
'countries.rb',
'mydir/states_bkp.rb', # match these
'mydir/city_states.rb'
]
excluded = ['states', 'countries']
# set my_rgx here
result = WankyAPI.filter(files, my_rgx) # I didn't write WankyAPI...
assert result == ['mydir/city_states.rb', 'mydir/states_bkp.rb']
Here's my solution:
excluded_rgx = excluded.map{|e| e+'\.'}.join('|')
my_rgx = /(^|\/)((?!#{excluded_rgx})[^\.\/]*)\.rb$/
My assumptions for this application:
The string to be excluded is at the beginning of the input, or immediately following a slash.
The permitted strings end with .rb.
Permitted filenames don't have a . character before the .rb.