I think I have my Regex working, but I'm not completely sure.
The regex is:
/(\n([ \t]*)){2,}/
The goal originally is to capture two or more new-lines together, so if someone types \n\n\n\n\n, I can do something with that.
However, I don't want interference between the consecutive new lines like trailing spaces and tabs...
So I still want to be able to catch \n \t \n\n \n.
I'm not sure if the parentheses are overkill.
The outer parenthesis are to signify that I want everything inside:
(\n([ \t]*))
to happen two or more times.
Then, the inner parentheses:
([ \t]*)
are to signify that I want any combination of spaces and tabs ranging from none to infinity trailing a \n to be included in that group. The reason for the inner parentheses is because I don't want it to be interpreted as (\n[ \t])* where the \n is grouped into potentially happening zero to infinity times.
My confusion stems from the fact that parentheses are used for certain things in regex, right? Not sure if it is like math.
Disclaimer: "Regex" is not a single thing; rather, it's a family of related notations supported by many different languages and tools. The below explanation pertains to the most widespread forms of regex, such as those of Perl, Java, JavaScript, Python, and PHP.
Yes, parentheses result in grouping, just as in mathematics.
In addition, parentheses normally "capture" the text they match, allowing the text to be referred to later. For example, /([a-z])\1/ matches a lowercase ASCII letter, followed by the same letter again. (So, it matches ee, but not ef.) You can disable this capturing by writing (?:...) instead of just (...).
However, just as in mathematics, you don't always need parentheses, because sometimes the default "order of operations" is appropriate. Just as we don't usually write (2x) + 3, because it's equivalent to 2x + 3, we don't usually write \n([ \t]*), because it's equivalent to \n[ \t]*.
The inner parens is not necessary. The Kleene star only works on the last match. In this case it is [ \t] not \n[ \t]. Note that in regexp every single non-special character is one match operation. Only when you need multiple characters to be counted as a single match operation would you need to use parens.
So, if you want to do "match newline followed by zero or more whitespace" you do:
\n[ \t]*
But if you want to do "match zero or more newline followed by one whitespace" you do:
(\n[ \t])*
Related
I came across this regular expression in vb.net 3.5 code:
Regex.IsMatch(strString, "^[\w\s.+'\-\(\)\/\,\&\#]+$")
What is really confusing me is the ".+" part. I was under the impression that the period means any character and the plus sign means one or more. Following this, I feel like this regular expression should allow anything! But it doesn't, so I must be misunderstanding something. In testing it, it seems like the period and the plus sign are being taken as literals.
Could somebody help explain this to me?
Thanks!
The issue is that all of those characters are enclosed in a [character-group]. The escaping rules are different in character-groups than they are elsewhere in a RegEx expression. For instance, according to the MSDN documentation, \b inside a character-group means a backspace character whereas, outside of a character-group, it is an anchor that matches a word boundary.
According to the Regular-Expressions.info documentation:
In most regex flavors, the only special characters or metacharacters inside a character class are the closing bracket (]), the backslash (), the caret (^), and the hyphen (-). The usual metacharacters are normal characters inside a character class, and do not need to be escaped by a backslash.
Therefore, in your example RegEx expression, it looks for any one of the characters in that bracketed list, including either the literal . or + character. If you think about it, it wouldn't make any sense to use a . to mean "any character" inside of a character-group. Doing so would make the group, itself, moot. And certainly, using the + character to mean "one or more times" inside of a character-group really makes no sense.
.+ is mean any symbol in an amount of one or more. Maybe you need to escape dot like \.+?
Within the square parenthesis, dot and plus don't have their special meaning. The square brackets define a "character class". It does not contain a string but a set of characters allowed at this position.
So the expression [\w\s.+'-()/\,\&#] creates a character class of letters, digits, underscore, spaces, dots, pluses, single quotes, minuses, opening round brackets, closing round brackets, slashes, commas, ampersands and hashmarks.
The + behind the square parenthesis means you expect one or more characters of this character class.
I've just learned about these two concepts in more detail. I've always been good with RegEx, and it seems I've never seen the need for these 2 zero width assertions.
I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, but I do not see why these constructs are needed. Consider this example:
Match a 'q' which is not followed by a 'u'.
2 strings will be the input:
Iraq
quit
With negative lookahead, the regex looks like this:
q(?!u)
Without it, it looks like this:
q[^u]
For the given input, both of these regex give the same results (i.e. matching Iraq but not quit) (tested with perl). The same idea applies to lookbehinds.
Am I missing a crucial feature that makes these assertions more valuable than the classic syntax?
Why your test probably worked (and why it shouldn't)
The reason you were able to match Iraq in your test might be that your string contained a \n at the end (for instance, if you read it from the shell). If you have a string that ends in q, then q[^u] cannot match it as the others said, because [^u] matches a non-u character - but the point is there has to be a character.
What do we actually need lookarounds for?
Obviously in the above case, lookaheads are not vital. You could workaround this by using q(?:[^u]|$). So we match only if q is followed by a non-u character or the end of the string. There are much more sophisticated uses for lookaheads though, which become a pain if you do them without lookaheads.
This answer tries to give an overview of some important standard situations which are best solved with lookarounds.
Let's start with looking at quoted strings. The usual way to match them is with something like "[^"]*" (not with ".*?"). After the opening ", we simply repeat as many non-quote characters as possible and then match the closing quote. Again, a negated character class is perfectly fine. But there are cases, where a negated character class doesn't cut it:
Multi-character delimiters
Now what if we don't have double-quotes to delimit our substring of interest, but a multi-character delimiter. For instance, we are looking for ---sometext---, where single and double - are allowed within sometext. Now you can't just use [^-]*, because that would forbid single -. The standard technique is to use a negative lookahead at every position, and only consume the next character, if it is not the beginning of ---. Like so:
---(?:(?!---).)*---
This might look a bit complicated if you haven't seen it before, but it's certainly nicer (and usually more efficient) than the alternatives.
Different delimiters
You get a similar case, where your delimiter is only one character but could be one of two (or more) different characters. For instance, say in our initial example, we want to allow for both single- and double-quoted strings. Of course, you could use '[^']*'|"[^"]*", but it would be nice to treat both cases without an alternative. The surrounding quotes can easily be taken care of with a backreference: (['"])[^'"]*\1. This makes sure that the match ends with the same character it began with. But now we're too restrictive - we'd like to allow " in single-quoted and ' in double-quoted strings. Something like [^\1] doesn't work, because a backreference will in general contain more than one character. So we use the same technique as above:
(['"])(?:(?!\1).)*\1
That is after the opening quote, before consuming each character we make sure that it is not the same as the opening character. We do that as long as possible, and then match the opening character again.
Overlapping matches
This is a (completely different) problem that can usually not be solved at all without lookarounds. If you search for a match globally (or want to regex-replace something globally), you may have noticed that matches can never overlap. I.e. if you search for ... in abcdefghi you get abc, def, ghi and not bcd, cde and so on. This can be problem if you want to make sure that your match is preceded (or surrounded) by something else.
Say you have a CSV file like
aaa,111,bbb,222,333,ccc
and you want to extract only fields that are entirely numerical. For simplicity, I'll assume that there is no leading or trailing whitespace anywhere. Without lookarounds, we might go with capturing and try:
(?:^|,)(\d+)(?:,|$)
So we make sure that we have the start of a field (start of string or ,), then only digits, and then the end of a field (, or end of string). Between that we capture the digits into group 1. Unfortunately, this will not give us 333 in the above example, because the , that precedes it was already part of the match ,222, - and matches cannot overlap. Lookarounds solve the problem:
(?<=^|,)\d+(?=,|$)
Or if you prefer double negation over alternation, this is equivalent to
(?<![^,])\d+(?![^,])
In addition to being able to get all matches, we get rid of the capturing which can generally improve performance. (Thanks to Adrian Pronk for this example.)
Multiple independent conditions
Another very classic example of when to use lookarounds (in particular lookaheads) is when we want to check multiple conditions on an input at the same time. Say we want to write a single regex that makes sure our input contains a digit, a lower case letter, an upper case letter, a character that is none of those, and no whitespace (say, for password security). Without lookarounds you'd have to consider all permutations of digit, lower case/upper case letter, and symbol. Like:
\S*\d\S*[a-z]\S*[A-Z]\S*[^0-9a-zA_Z]\S*|\S*\d\S*[A-Z]\S*[a-z]\S*[^0-9a-zA_Z]\S*|...
Those are only two of the 24 necessary permutations. If you also want to ensure a minimum string length in the same regex, you'd have to distribute those in all possible combinations of the \S* - it simply becomes impossible to do in a single regex.
Lookahead to the rescue! We can simply use several lookaheads at the beginning of the string to check all of these conditions:
^(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[^0-9a-zA-Z])(?!.*\s)
Because the lookaheads don't actually consume anything, after checking each condition the engine resets to the beginning of the string and can start looking at the next one. If we wanted to add a minimum string length (say 8), we could simply append (?=.{8}). Much simpler, much more readable, much more maintainable.
Important note: This is not the best general approach to check these conditions in any real setting. If you are making the check programmatically, it's usually better to have one regex for each condition, and check them separately - this let's you return a much more useful error message. However, the above is sometimes necessary, if you have some fixed framework that lets you do validation only by supplying a single regex. In addition, it's worth knowing the general technique, if you ever have independent criteria for a string to match.
I hope these examples give you a better idea of why people would like to use lookarounds. There are a lot more applications (another classic is inserting commas into numbers), but it's important that you realise that there is a difference between (?!u) and [^u] and that there are cases where negated character classes are not powerful enough at all.
q[^u] will not match "Iraq" because it will look for another symbol.
q(?!u) however, will match "Iraq":
regex = /q[^u]/
/q[^u]/
regex.test("Iraq")
false
regex.test("Iraqf")
true
regex = /q(?!u)/
/q(?!u)/
regex.test("Iraq")
true
Well, another thing along with what others mentioned with the negative lookahead, you can match consecutive characters (e.g. you can negate ui while with [^...], you cannot negate ui but either u or i and if you try [^ui]{2}, you will also negate uu, ii and iu.
The whole point is to not "consume" the next character(s), so that it can be e.g. captured by another expression that comes afterwards.
If they're the last expression in the regex, then what you've shown are equivalent.
But e.g. q(?!u)([a-z]) would let the non-u character be part of the next group.
<A "SystemTemperatureOutOfSpec" >
What should be the regular expression for parsing the string inside "". In the above sample it is 'SystemTemperatureOutOfSpec'
In JavaScript, this regexp:
/"([^"]*)"/
ex.
> /"([^"]*)"/.exec('<A "SystemTemperatureOutOfSpec" >')[1]
"SystemTemperatureOutOfSpec"
Similar patterns should work in a bunch of other programming languages.
try this
string Exp = "\"!\"";
I am not sure I understand your question well but if you need to match everything between double quotes, here it is: /(?<=").*?(?=")/s
(?<=<A\s")(?<content>.*)(?="\s>)
Regular expressions don't get much easier than this, so you should be able to solve it by yourself. Here's how you go about doing that:
The first step is to try to define as precisely as possible what you want to find. Let's start with this: you want to find a quote, followed by some number of characters other than a quote, followed by a quote. Is that correct? If so, our pattern has three parts: "a quote", "some characters other than a quote", and "a quote".
Now all we need to do is figure out what the regular expressions for those patterns are.
A quote
For "a quote", the pattern is literally ". Regular expressions have special characters which you have to be aware of (*, ., etc). Anything that's not a special character matches itself, and " is one of those characters. For a complete list of special characters for your language, see the documentation.
Characters other than a quote
So now the question is, how do we match "characters other than a quote"? That sounds like a range. A range is square brackets with a list of allowable characters. If the list begins with ^ it means it is a list of not-allowed characters. We want any characters other than a quote, so that means [^"].
"Some"
That range just means any one of the characters in the range, but we want "some". "Some" usually means either zero-or-more, or one-or-more. You can place * after a part of an expression to mean zero-or-more of that part. Likewise, use + to mean one-or-more (and ? means zero-or-one). There are a few other variations, but that's enough for this problem.
So, "some characters other than a quote" is the range [^"] (any character other than a quote) followed by * (zero-or-more). Thus, [^"]*
Putting it all together
This is the easy part: just combine all the pieces. A quote, followed by some characters other than a quote, followed by a quote, is "[^"]*".
Capturing the interesting part
The pattern we have will now match your string. What you want, however, is just the part inside the quotes. For that you need a "capturing group", which is denoted by parenthesis. To capture a part of a regular expression, put it in parenthesis. So, if we want to capture everything but the beginning and ending quote, the pattern becomes "([^"]*)".
And that's how you learn regular expressions. Break your problem down into a precise statement composed of short sequences of characters, figure out the regular expression for each sequence, then put it all together.
The pattern in this answer may not actually be the perfect answer for you. There are some edge cases to worry about. For example, you may only want to match a quote following a non-word character, or only quotes at the beginning or end of a word. That's all possible, but is highly dependent on your exact problem. Figuring out how to do that is just as easy though -- decide what you want, then look at the documentation to see how to accomplish that.
Spend one day practicing on regular expressions and you'll never have to ask anyone for help with regular expressions for the rest of your career. They aren't hard, but they do require concentrated study.
Are you sure you need regular expression matching here? Looking at your "string" you might be better off using a Xml parser?
I'm looking for a regular expression that allows for either single-quoted or double-quoted strings, and allows the opposite quote character within the string. For example, the following would both be legal strings:
"hello 'there' world"
'hello "there" world'
The regexp I'm using uses negative lookahead and is as follows:
(['"])(?:(?!\1).)*\1
This would work I think, but what about if the language didn't support negative lookahead. Is there any other way to do this? Without alternation?
EDIT:
I know I can use alternation. This was more of just a hypothetical question. Say I had 20 different characters in the initial character class. I wouldn't want to write out 20 different alternations. I'm trying to actually negate the captured character, without using lookahead, lookbehind, or alternation.
This is actually much simpler than you may have realized. You don't really need the negative look-ahead. What you want to do is a non-greedy (or lazy) match like this:
(['"]).*?\1
The ? character after the .* is the important part. It says, consume the minimum possible characters before hitting the next part of the regex. So, you get either kind of quote, and then you go after 0-M characters until you encounter a character matching whichever quote you first ran into. You can learn more about greedy matching vs. non-greedy here and here.
Sure:
'([^']*)'|"([^"]*)"
On a successful match, the $+ variable will hold the contents of whichever alternate matched.
In the general case, regexps are not really the answer. You might be interested in something like Text::ParseWords, which tokenizes text, accounting for nested quotes, backslashed quotes, backslashed spaces, and other oddities.
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