What is the difference of using just a ^ compared to ^.* in regex pattern?
Seems ^ alone can be a valid pattern (not just an anchor).
Test result on JSFiddle:-
https://jsfiddle.net/wLvx0mus/4/
Yes, /^/ is a valid pattern. It will match any string it's applied to, so it's no good for searching, validating or extracting text, but it is useful for replacing:
result = subject.replace(/^/mg, "gronk");
That will add gronk to the beginning of every line. Whereas this:
result = subject.replace(/^.*/mg, "gronk");
...will replace the contents of every line with gronk.
Assuming you are using it as the beginning of string character, one matches the beginning of a string, the other represents 0 or more characters of any kind starting at the beginning of the string
In substitution, the first one would effectively prepend your replacement value, while the other one would replace everything with your replacement value.
However, if you are using the ^ in a character class, it could be a negative match flag (e.g. [^.*] should represent any character that is not a literal . or *). In any case, it's very difficult to provide a useful answer without knowing the context of how it's being used in your case. Also, please provide the regex flavor you're using. The difference in syntax could have a big impact.
Related
I am writing tokenizer in jflex. I need to match words like interferon-a as one token, and words like interferon-alpha as three.
Obvious solution would be lookaheads, but they do not work in jflex. For a similar task, I wrote a function matching one additional wildcard character after the matched pattern, checking if it is a whitespace in java code and pushing it back with or without a part of the matched string.
REGEX = [:letter:]+\-[:letter:]\.
From string interferon-alpha it would match interferon-al.
Then, in Java code section it would check if the last character of the match is a whitespace. It is not, so -al would be pushed back and interferon returned.
In the case of interferon-a, whitespace would be pushed back and interferon returned.
However, this function does not work if matched string does not have anything succeeding. Also, it seems quite clunky. Hence, I was wondering if there is any 'nicer' way of ensuring that the following character is a whitespace without actually matching and returning it.
JFlex certainly has a lookahead facility, the same as (f)lex. Unlike Java regex lookahead assertions, the JFlex lookahead can only be applied at the end of a match, but it is otherwise similar. It is described in the Semantics section of JFlex manual:
In a lexical rule, a regular expression r may be followed by a look-ahead expression. A look-ahead expression is either $ (the end of line operator) or / followed by an arbitrary regular expression. In both cases the look-ahead is not consumed and not included in the matched text region, but it is considered while determining which rule has the longest match…
So you could certainly write the rule:
[:letter:]+\-[:letter:]/\s
However, you cannot put such a rule in a macro definition (REGEX = …), as the manual also mentions (in the section on macros):
The regular expression on the right hand side must be well formed and must not contain the ^, / or $ operators.
So the lookahead operator can only be used in a pattern rule.
Note that \s matches any whitespace character, including newline characters, while . does not match any newline character. I think that's what lead to your comment that REGEX = [:letter:]+\-[:letter:]\. "does not work if matched string does not have anything succeeding" (I'm guessing that you meant "does not have anything succeeding it on the same line, and also that you intended to write . rather than \.).
Rather than testing for following whitespace, you might (depending on your language) prefer to test for a non-word character:
[:letter:]+\-[:letter:]/\W
or to craft a more precise specification as a set of Unicode properties, as in the definition of \W (also found in the linked section of the JFlex manual).
Having said all that, I'd like to repeat the advice from my previous answer to a similar question of yours: put more specific patterns first. For example, using the following pair of patterns will guarantee that the first one picks up words with a single letter suffix, while avoiding the need to explicitly pushback.
[:letter:]+(-[:letter:])? { /* matches 'interferon' or 'interferon-a' */ }
[:letter:]+/-[:letter:]+ { /* matches only 'interferon' from 'interferon-alpha' */ }
Of course, in this case you could easily avoid the collision between the second pattern and the first pattern by using {2,} instead of + for the second repetition, but it's perfectly OK to rely on pattern ordering since it's often inconvenient to guarantee that patterns don't overlap.
I have this regex:
^(^?)*\?(.*)$
If I understand correctly, this is the breakdown of what it does:
^ - start matching from the beginning of the string
(^?)* - I don't know know, but it stores it in $1
\? - matches a question mark
(.*)$ - matches anything until the end of the string
So what does (^?)* mean?
The (^?) is simply looking for the literal character ^. The ^ character in a regex pattern only has special meaning when used as the first character of the pattern or the first character in a grouping match []. When used outside those 2 positions the ^ is interpreted literally meaning in looks for the ^ character in the input string
Note: Whether or not ^ outside of the first and grouping position is interpreted literally is regex engine specific. I'm not familiar enough with LUA to state which it does
Lua does not have a conventional regexp language, it has Lua patterns in its place. While they look a lot like regexp, Lua patterns are a distinct language of their own that has a simpler set of rules and most importantly lacks grouping and alternation features.
Interpreted as a Lua pattern, the example will surprising a longtime regexp user since so many details are different.
Lua patterns are described in PiL, and at a first glance are similar enough to a conventional regexp to cause confusion. The biggest differences are probably the lack of an alternation operator |, parenthesis are only used to mark captures, quantifiers (?, -, +, and *) only apply to a character or character class, and % is the escape character not \. A big clue that this example was probably not written with Lua in mind is the lack of the Lua pattern quoting character % applied to any (or ideally, all) of the non-alphanumeric characters in the pattern string, and the suspicious use of \? which smells like a conventional regexp to match a single literal ?.
The simple answer to the question asked is: (^?)* is not a recommended form, and would match ^* or *, capturing the presence or absence of the caret. If that were the intended effect, then I would write it as (%^?)%* to make that clearer.
To see why this is the case, let's take the pattern given and analyze it as a Lua pattern. The entire pattern is:
^(^?)*\?(.*)$
Handed to string.match(), it would be interpreted as follows:
^ anchors the match to the beginning of the string.
( marks the beginning of the first capture.
^ is not at the beginning of the pattern or a character class, so it matches a literal ^ character. For clarity that should likely have been written as %^.
? matches exactly zero or one of the previous character.
) marks the end of the first capture.
* is not after something that can be quantified so it matches a literal * character. For clarity that should likely have been written as %*.
\ in a pattern matches itself, it is not an escape character in the pattern language. However, it is an escape character in a Lua short string literal, making the following character not special to the string literal parser which in this case is moot because the ? that follows was not special to it in any case. So if the pattern were enclosed in double or single quotes, then the \ would be absorbed by string parsing. If written in a long string (as [[^(^?)*\?(.*)$]], the backslash would survive the string parser, to appear in the pattern.
? matches exactly zero or one of the previous character.
( marks the beginning the second capture.
. matches any character at all, effectively a synonym for the class [\000-\255] (remember, in Lua numeric escapes are in decimal not octal as in C).
* matches zero or more of the previous character, greedily.
) marks the end of the second capture.
$ anchors the pattern to the end of the string.
So it matches and captures an optional ^ at the beginning of the string, followed by *, then an optional \ which is not captured, and captures the entire rest of the string. string.match would return two strings on success (either or both of which might be zero length), or nil on failure.
Edit: I've fixed some typos, and corrected an error in my answer, noticed by Egor in a comment. I forgot that in patterns, special symbols loose their specialness when in a spot where it can't apply. That makes the first asterisk match a literal asterisk rather than be an error. The cascade of that falls through most of the answer.
Note that if you really want a true regexp in Lua, there are libraries available that will provide it. That said, the built-in pattern language is quite powerful. If it is not sufficient, then you might be best off adopting a full parser, and use LPeg which can do everything a regexp can and more. It even comes with a module that provides a complete regexp syntax that is translated into an LPeg grammar for execution.
In this case, the (^?) refers to the previous string "^" meaning the literal character ^ as Jared has said. Check out regexlib for any further deciphering.
For all your Regex needs: http://regexlib.com/CheatSheet.aspx
It looks to me like the intent of the creator of the expression was to match any number of ^ before the question mark, but only wanted to capture the first instance of ^. However, it may not be a valid expression depending on the engine, as others have stated.
I am trying to check if a string contains at least A-Za-z0-9 but not an &.
My experience with regexes is limited, so I started with the easy part and got:
.*[a-zA-Z0-9].*
However I am having troubling combining this with the does not contain an & portion.
I was thinking along the lines of ^(?=.*[a-zA-Z0-9].*)(?![&()]).* but that does not seem to do the trick.
Any help would be appreciated.
I'm not sure if this what you meant, but here is a regular expression that will match any string that:
contains at least one alpha-numeric character
does not contain a &
This expression ensures that the entire string is always matched (the ^ and $ at beginning and end), and that none of the characters matched are a "&" sign (the [^&]* sections):
^[^&]*[a-zA-Z0-9][^&]*$
However, it might be clearer in code to simply perform two checks, if you are not limited to a single expression.
Also, check out the \w class in regular expressions (it might be the better solution for catching alphanumeric chars if you want to allow non-ASCII characters).
I know it is quite some weird goal here but for a quick and dirty fix for one of our system we do need to not filter any input and let the corruption go into the system.
My current regex for this is "\^.*"
The problem with that is that it does not match characters as planned ... but for one match it does work. The string that make it not work is ^#jj (basically anything that has ^ ... ).
What would be the best way to not match any characters now ? I was thinking of removing the \ but only doing this will transform the "not" into a "start with" ...
The ^ character doesn't mean "not" except inside a character class ([]). If you want to not match anything, you could use a negative lookahead that matches anything: (?!.*).
A simple and cheap regex that will never match anything is to match against something that is simply unmatchable, for example: \b\B.
It's simply impossible for this regex to match, since it's a contradiction.
References
regular-expressions.info\Word Boundaries
\B is the negated version of \b. \B matches at every position where \b does not.
Another very well supported and fast pattern that would fail to match anything that is guaranteed to be constant time:
$unmatchable pattern $anything goes here etc.
$ of course indicates the end-of-line. No characters could possibly go after $ so no further state transitions could possibly be made. The additional advantage are that your pattern is intuitive, self-descriptive and readable as well!
tldr; The most portable and efficient regex to never match anything is $- (end of line followed by a char)
Impossible regex
The most reliable solution is to create an impossible regex. There are many impossible regexes but not all are as good.
First you want to avoid "lookahead" solutions because some regex engines don't support it.
Then you want to make sure your "impossible regex" is efficient and won't take too much computation steps to match... nothing.
I found that $- has a constant computation time ( O(1) ) and only takes two steps to compute regardless of the size of your text (https://regex101.com/r/yjcs1Z/3).
For comparison:
$^ and $. both take 36 steps to compute -> O(1)
\b\B takes 1507 steps on my sample and increase with the number of character in your string -> O(n)
Empty regex (alternative solution)
If your regex engine accepts it, the best and simplest regex to never match anything might be: an empty regex .
Instead of trying to not match any characters, why not just match all characters? ^.*$ should do the trick. If you have to not match any characters then try ^\j$ (Assuming of course, that your regular expression engine will not throw an error when you provide it an invalid character class. If it does, try ^()$. A quick test with RegexBuddy suggests that this might work.
^ is only not when it's in class (such as [^a-z] meaning anything but a-z). You've turned it into a literal ^ with the backslash.
What you're trying to do is [^]*, but that's not legal. You could try something like
" {10000}"
which would match exactly 10,000 spaces, if that's longer than your maximum input, it should never be matched.
((?iLmsux))
Try this, it matches only if the string is empty.
Interesting ... the most obvious and simple variant:
~^
.
https://regex101.com/r/KhTM1i/1
requiring usually only one computation step (failing directly at the start and being computational expensive only if the matched string begins with a long series of ~) is not mentioned among all the other answers ... for 12 years.
You want to match nothing at all? Neg lookarounds seems obvious, but can be slow, perhaps ^$ (matches empty string only) as an alternative?
I need to match a colon (':') in a string, but not when it's enclosed by quotes - either a " or ' character.
So the following should have 2 matches
something:'firstValue':'secondValue'
something:"firstValue":'secondValue'
but this should only have 1 match
something:'no:match'
If the regular expression implementation supports look-around assertions, try this:
:(?:(?<=["']:)|(?=["']))
This will match any colon that is either preceeded or followed by a double or single quote. So that does only consider construct like you mentioned. something:firstValue would not be matched.
It would be better if you build a little parser that reads the input byte-by-byte and remembers when quotation is open.
Regular expressions are stateless. Tracking whether you are inside of quotes or not is state information. It is, therefore, impossible to handle this correctly using only a single regular expression. (Note that some "regular expression" implementations add extensions which may make this possible; I'm talking solely about "true" regular expressions here.)
Doing it with two regular expressions is possible, though, provided that you're willing to modify the original string or to work with a copy of it. In Perl:
$string =~ s/['"][^'"]*['"]//g;
my $match_count = $string =~ /:/g;
The first will find every sequence consisting of a quote, followed by any number of non-quote characters, and terminated by a second quote, and remove all such sequences from the string. This will eliminate any colons which are within quotes. (something:"firstValue":'secondValue' becomes something:: and something:'no:match' becomes something:)
The second does a simple count of the remaining colons, which will be those that weren't within quotes to start with.
Just counting the non-quoted colons doesn't seem like a particularly useful thing to do in most cases, though, so I suspect that your real goal is to split the string up into fields with colons as the field delimiter, in which case this regex-based solution is unsuitable, as it will destroy any data in quoted fields. In that case, you need to use a real parser (most CSV parsers allow you to specify the delimiter and would be ideal for this) or, in the worst case, walk through the string character-by-character and split it manually.
If you tell us the language you're using, I'm sure somebody could suggest a good parser library for that language.
Uppps ... missed the point. Forget the rest. It's quite hard to do this because regex is not good at counting balanced characters (but the .NET implementation for example has an extension that can do it, but it's a bit complicated).
You can use negated character groups to do this.
[^'"]:[^'"]
You can further wrap the quotes in non-capturing groups.
(?:[^'"]):(?:[^'"])
Or you can use assertion.
(?<!['"]):(?!['"])
I've come up with the following slightly worrying construction:
(?<=^('[^']*')*("[^"]*")*[^'"]*):
It uses a lookbehind assertion to make sure you match an even number of quotes from the beginning of the line to the current colon. It allows for embedding a single quote inside double quotes and vice versa. As in:
'a":b':c::"':" (matches at positions 6, 8 and 9)
EDIT
Gumbo is right, using * within a look behind assertion is not allowed.
You can try to catch the strings withing the quotes
/(?<q>'|")([\w ]+)(\k<q>)/m
First pattern defines the allowed quote types, second pattern takes all Word-Digits and spaces.
Very good on this solution is, it takes ONLY Strings where opening and closing quotes match.
Try it at regex101.com