I am trying to write a regular expression that will match values such as U.S., D.C., U.S.A., etc.
Here is what I have so far -
\b([a-zA-Z]\.){2,}+
Note how this expression matches but does not include the last letter in the acronym.
Can anyone help explain what I am missing here?
SOLUTION
I'm posting the solution here in case this helps anyone.
\b(?:[a-zA-Z]\.){2,}
It seems as if a non-capturing group is required here.
Try (?:[a-zA-Z]\.){2,}
?: (non-capturing group) is there because you want to omit capturing the last iteration of the repeated group.
For example, without ?:, 'U.S.A.' will yield a group match 'A.', which you are not interested about.
None of these proposed solutions do what yours does - make sure that there are at least 2 letters in the acronym. Also, yours works on http://rubular.com/ . This is probably some issue with the regex implementation - to be fair, all of the matches that you got were valid acronyms. To fix this, you could either:
Make sure there's a space or EOF succeeding your expression ((?=\s|$) in ruby at least)
Surround your regex with ^ and $ to make sure it catches the whole string. You'd have to split the whole string on spaces to get matches with this though.
I prefer the former solution - to do this you'd have:
\b([a-zA-Z]\.){2,}(?=\s|$)
Edit: I've realized this doesn't actually work with other punctuation in the string, and a couple of other edge cases. This is super ugly, but I think it should be good enough:
(?<=\s|^)((?:[a-zA-Z]\.){2,})(?=[[:punct:]]?(?:\s|$))
This assumes that you've got this [[:punct:]] character class, and allows for 0-1 punctuation marks after an acronym that won't be captured. I've also fixed it up so that there's a single capture group that gets the whole acronym. Check out validation at http://rubular.com/r/lmr0qERLDh
Bonus: you now get to make this super confusing to anyone reading it.
This should work:
/([a-zA-Z]\.)+/g
I have slightly modified the solution above:
\b(?:[a-zA-Z]+\.){2,}
to enable capturing acronyms containing more than one letter between the dots, like in 'GHQ.AFP.X.Y'
Related
I've been looking around and could not make this happen. I am not totally noob.
I need to get text delimited by (including) START and END that doesn't contain START. Basically I can't find a way to negate a whole word without using advanced stuff.
Example string:
abcSTARTabcSTARTabcENDabc
The expected result:
STARTabcEND
Not good:
STARTabcSTARTabcEND
I can't use backward search stuff. I am testing my regex here: www.regextester.com
Thanks for any advice.
Try this
START(?!.*START).*?END
See it here online on Regexr
(?!.*START) is a negative lookahead. It ensures that the word "START" is not following
.*? is a non greedy match of all characters till the next "END". Its needed, because the negative lookahead is just looking ahead and not capturing anything (zero length assertion)
Update:
I thought a bit more, the solution above is matching till the first "END". If this is not wanted (because you are excluding START from the content) then use the greedy version
START(?!.*START).*END
this will match till the last "END".
START(?:(?!START).)*END
will work with any number of START...END pairs. To demonstrate in Python:
>>> import re
>>> a = "abcSTARTdefENDghiSTARTjlkENDopqSTARTrstSTARTuvwENDxyz"
>>> re.findall(r"START(?:(?!START).)*END", a)
['STARTdefEND', 'STARTjlkEND', 'STARTuvwEND']
If you only care for the content between START and END, use this:
(?<=START)(?:(?!START).)*(?=END)
See it here:
>>> re.findall(r"(?<=START)(?:(?!START).)*(?=END)", a)
['def', 'jlk', 'uvw']
The really pedestrian solution would be START(([^S]|S*S[^ST]|ST[^A]|STA[^R]|STAR[^T])*(S(T(AR?)?)?)?)END. Modern regex flavors have negative assertions which do this more elegantly, but I interpret your comment about "backwards search" to perhaps mean you cannot or don't want to use this feature.
Update: Just for completeness, note that the above is greedy with respect to the end delimiter. To only capture the shortest possible string, extend the negation to also cover the end delimiter -- START(([^ES]|E*E[^ENS]|EN[^DS]|S*S[^STE]|ST[^AE]|STA[^RE]|STAR[^TE])*(S(T(AR?)?)?|EN?)?)END. This risks to exceed the torture threshold in most cultures, though.
Bug fix: A previous version of this answer had a bug, in that SSTART could be part of the match (the second S would match [^T], etc). I fixed this but by the addition of S in [^ST] and adding S* before the non-optional S to allow for arbitrary repetitions of S otherwise.
May I suggest a possible improvement on the solution of Tim Pietzcker?
It seems to me that START(?:(?!START).)*?END is better in order to only catch a START immediately followed by an END without any START or END in between. I am using .NET and Tim's solution would match also something like START END END. At least in my personal case this is not wanted.
[EDIT: I have left this post for the information on capture groups but the main solution I gave was not correct.
(?:START)((?:[^S]|S[^T]|ST[^A]|STA[^R]|STAR[^T])*)(?:END)
as pointed out in the comments would not work; I was forgetting that the ignored characters could not be dropped and thus you would need something such as ...|STA(?![^R])| to still allow that character to be part of END, thus failing on something such as STARTSTAEND; so it's clearly a better choice; the following should show the proper way to use the capture groups...]
The answer given using the 'zero-width negative lookahead' operator "?!", with capture groups, is: (?:START)((?!.*START).*)(?:END) which captures the inner text using $1 for the replace. If you want to have the START and END tags captured you could do (START)((?!.*START).*)(END) which gives $1=START $2=text and $3=END or various other permutations by adding/removing ()s or ?:s.
That way if you are using it to do search and replace, you can do, something like BEGIN$1FINISH. So, if you started with:
abcSTARTdefSTARTghiENDjkl
you would get ghi as capture group 1, and replacing with BEGIN$1FINISH would give you the following:
abcSTARTdefBEGINghiFINISHjkl
which would allow you to change your START/END tokens only when paired properly.
Each (x) is a group, but I have put (?:x) for each of the ones except the middle which marks it as a non-capturing group; the only one I left without a ?: was the middle; however, you could also conceivably capture the BEGIN/END tokens as well if you wanted to move them around or what-have-you.
See the Java regex documentation for full details on Java regexes.
I am in the process of learning Regex and have been stuck on this case. I have a url that can be in two states EXAMPLE 1:
spotify.com/track/1HYcYZCOpaLjg51qUg8ilA?si=Nf5w1q9MTKu3zG_CJ83RWA
OR EXAMPLE 2:
spotify.com/track/1HYcYZCOpaLjg51qUg8ilA
I need to extract the 1HYcYZCOpaLjg51qUg8ilA ID
So far I am using this: (?<=track\/)(.*)(?=\?)? which works well for Example 2 but it includes the ?si=Nf5w1q9MTKu3zG_CJ83RWA when matching with Example 1.
BUT if I remove the ? at the end of the expression then it works for Example 1 but not Example 2! Doesn't that mean that last group (?=\?) is optional and should match?
Where am I going wrong?
Thanks!
I searched a handful of "Questions that may already have your answer" suggestions from SO, and didn't find this case, so I hope asking this is okay!
The capturing group in your regular expression is trying to match anything (.) as much as possible due to the greediness of the quantifier (*).
When you use:
(?<=track\/)(.*)(?=\?)
only 1HYcYZCOpaLjg51qUg8ilA from the first example is captured, as there is no question mark in your second example.
When using:
(?<=track\/)(.*)(?=\??)
You are effectively making the positive lookahead optional, so the capturing group will try to match as much as possible (including the question mark), so that 1HYcYZCOpaLjg51qUg8ilA?si=Nf5w1q9MTKu3zG_CJ83RWA and 1HYcYZCOpaLjg51qUg8ilA are matched, which is not the desired output.
Rather than matching anything, it is perhaps more appropriate for you to match alphanumerical characters \w only.
(?<=track\/)(\w*)(?=\??)
Alternatively, if you are expecting other characters , let's say a hyphen - or a underscore _, you may use a character class.
(?<=track\/)([a-zA-Z0-9_-]*)(?=\??)
Or you might want to capture everything except a question mark ? with a negated character class.
(?<=track\/)([^?]*)(?=\??)
As pointed out by gaganso, a look-behind is not necessary in this situation (or indeed the lookahead), however it is indeed a good idea to start playing around with them. The look-around assertions do not actually consume the characters in the string. As you can see here, the full match for both matches only consists of what is captured by the capture group. You may find more information here.
This should work:
track\/(\w+)
Please see here.
Since track is part of both the strings, and the ID is formed from alphanumeric characters, the above regex which matches the string "track/" and captures the alphanumeric characters after that string, should provide the required ID.
Regex : (\w+(?=\?))|(\w+&)
See the demo for the regex, https://regexr.com/3s4gv .
This will first try to search for word which has '?' just after it and if thats unsuccessful it will fetch the last word.
I am actually working with a .tsv database whose headers are full of meaningful things for me.
I thus wanted to rip them off from the header to something that I & others users (non proficient with relational databases, so we mostly use Excel in the end to organize data and process it) would be more able to handle with Excel, by breaking them up with tabs.
Example header:
>(name1)database-ID:database2-ID:value1:value2
(I know this seems strange to put values in an header but this is descriptive of parameters of the third value associated to the header, that we don't have to mess here)
output as:
name1\tdatabase-ID\tdatabase2-ID\tvalue1\tvalue2\n
I thus pasted my data (headers, one per line) in EmEditor (BOOST syntax) and came with this regex:
>\((.*)\)(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\n
with each capturing group being then separated from others by inserting tabs between each others. It works, with perfect matches, no problem.
But I became aware there were malformed lines that didn't respected the logic of the whole database, and I wanted to make an expression to separate them at once.
If I make it with wrong lines it would be:
>(name1)database-ID:database2-ID:value1-1:value1-2\n
>(name2)database-ID:database2-ID:value2-1:value2-2\n
>(name3)database-ID:database2-ID:value3-1value3-2\n
Last line is ill-formed because it lacks the : between both last values.
I want it to be matched by working around the original expression that recognizes well-formed lines.
I perfectly know that I could came with different solutions by slightly tweaking my first expression for eliminating the good lines and retrieving misformed one after but
I don't want a solution to my process, I just want to understand what I made not well there; so that I become more educated (and not just more tricky by being able to circumvent my mistakes that I can't resolve):
I tried a negation of the above mentioned expression:
([^(>\((.*)\)(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\n)])
That doesn't match with anything.
I tried a negative lookahead, but It will be extremely, painfully slow then will match every 0-length matches possible in the document:
(?!(^>\((.*)\)(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\n))
I thus added a group capture for a string of characters behind,
but it doesn't work either:
(?!(^>\((.*)\)(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\n))(^.*?)
So please explain me where I have been wrong with the negating group ([^whatever]) and the use of the negative lookahead?
So please explain me where I have been wrong with the negating group ([^whatever]) and the use of the negative lookahead?
Let's address the question first: What does [^(pattern)] do?
You seem to have a misunderstanding and expect it to:
Match everything except the subpattern pattern. (Negation)
What it actually does is to:
Match any character that aren't (, p, a, t, ... n, ).
Therefore, the pattern
([^(>\((.*)\)(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\n)])
... Matches a character that aren't (, >, (, ... \n, ).
As for the negative lookahead, you're simply doing it wrong. The anchor ^ is in the wrong position, therefore your assertion will fail to provide any useful help. It's also not what negative lookaheads are for altogether.
(?!(^>\((.*)\)(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\n))
I'll explain what this does:
(?! Open negative lookahead group: Assert the position does not match this pattern, without moving the pointer position.
( Capturing group. The use of capturing groups in negative lookaheads are useless, as the subpattern in negative lookahead groups never matches.
^ Assert position at start of string.
>\( Literal character sequence ">(".
(.*) Capturing group which matches as many characters as possible except newlines, then backtracks.
\) Literal character ")".
(.*?) Capturing group with reluctant zero-to-one match of any characters except newlines.
\: Literal character ":".
(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)
\n A new line.
) Closes capturing group.
) Closes negative lookahead group. When this assertion is finished, the pointer position is same as beginning, and thus the resulting match is zero-length.
Note that the anchor is nested within the negative lookahead group. It should be at the start:
^(?!(>\((.*)\)(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\:(.*?)\n))
While this doesn't return anything useful, it explains what is wrong, since you don't need a solution. ;)
In case you are in need of a solution suddenly, please refer to this relevant answer of mine (I'm not adding anything else into the post):
Rails 3 - Precompiling all css, sass and scss files in a folder
You could do this simply through PCRE Verb (*SKIP)(*F). The below regex would match all the bad-lines.
(?:^>\([^()]*\):[^:]*:[^:]*:[^:]*:[^:\n]*$)(*SKIP)(*F)|^.+
DEMO
Based on what I have been reading from Unihedron;
This is what I came for in emEditor:
^(?!>\(([A-Za-z0-9_\'\-]*?)\)(([A-Za-z0-9_\'\-]*?)\:){3}([A-Za-z0-9_\'\-]*?)\n).*\n
>(name1)database-ID:database2-ID:value1-1:value1-2
(NOT MATCH)
>(name2)database-ID:database2-ID:value2-1:value2-2
(NOT MATCH)
>(name3)database-ID:database2-ID:value3-1value3-2
(MATCH)
>(name3)database-ID::database2-ID:value3-1:value3-2
(MATCH)
(the character class avoid discarding names including special characters without making it possible to have two subsequent ":".)
I also could achieve the same results with:
(?!^>\(([A-Za-z0-9_\'\-]*?)\)(([A-Za-z0-9_\'\-]*?)\:){3}([A-Za-z0-9_\'\-]*?)\n)^.*\n
So I guess that all along capturing groups were what was messing with my lookahead.
Now I acknowledge that Avinash Raj is more efficient with the (*SKIP)(*F)|^.+ pattern, just that I didn't know about those functions and I also wanted to understand my logic / syntax mistake. (Thanks to Unihedron for that)
I've been looking around and could not make this happen. I am not totally noob.
I need to get text delimited by (including) START and END that doesn't contain START. Basically I can't find a way to negate a whole word without using advanced stuff.
Example string:
abcSTARTabcSTARTabcENDabc
The expected result:
STARTabcEND
Not good:
STARTabcSTARTabcEND
I can't use backward search stuff. I am testing my regex here: www.regextester.com
Thanks for any advice.
Try this
START(?!.*START).*?END
See it here online on Regexr
(?!.*START) is a negative lookahead. It ensures that the word "START" is not following
.*? is a non greedy match of all characters till the next "END". Its needed, because the negative lookahead is just looking ahead and not capturing anything (zero length assertion)
Update:
I thought a bit more, the solution above is matching till the first "END". If this is not wanted (because you are excluding START from the content) then use the greedy version
START(?!.*START).*END
this will match till the last "END".
START(?:(?!START).)*END
will work with any number of START...END pairs. To demonstrate in Python:
>>> import re
>>> a = "abcSTARTdefENDghiSTARTjlkENDopqSTARTrstSTARTuvwENDxyz"
>>> re.findall(r"START(?:(?!START).)*END", a)
['STARTdefEND', 'STARTjlkEND', 'STARTuvwEND']
If you only care for the content between START and END, use this:
(?<=START)(?:(?!START).)*(?=END)
See it here:
>>> re.findall(r"(?<=START)(?:(?!START).)*(?=END)", a)
['def', 'jlk', 'uvw']
The really pedestrian solution would be START(([^S]|S*S[^ST]|ST[^A]|STA[^R]|STAR[^T])*(S(T(AR?)?)?)?)END. Modern regex flavors have negative assertions which do this more elegantly, but I interpret your comment about "backwards search" to perhaps mean you cannot or don't want to use this feature.
Update: Just for completeness, note that the above is greedy with respect to the end delimiter. To only capture the shortest possible string, extend the negation to also cover the end delimiter -- START(([^ES]|E*E[^ENS]|EN[^DS]|S*S[^STE]|ST[^AE]|STA[^RE]|STAR[^TE])*(S(T(AR?)?)?|EN?)?)END. This risks to exceed the torture threshold in most cultures, though.
Bug fix: A previous version of this answer had a bug, in that SSTART could be part of the match (the second S would match [^T], etc). I fixed this but by the addition of S in [^ST] and adding S* before the non-optional S to allow for arbitrary repetitions of S otherwise.
May I suggest a possible improvement on the solution of Tim Pietzcker?
It seems to me that START(?:(?!START).)*?END is better in order to only catch a START immediately followed by an END without any START or END in between. I am using .NET and Tim's solution would match also something like START END END. At least in my personal case this is not wanted.
[EDIT: I have left this post for the information on capture groups but the main solution I gave was not correct.
(?:START)((?:[^S]|S[^T]|ST[^A]|STA[^R]|STAR[^T])*)(?:END)
as pointed out in the comments would not work; I was forgetting that the ignored characters could not be dropped and thus you would need something such as ...|STA(?![^R])| to still allow that character to be part of END, thus failing on something such as STARTSTAEND; so it's clearly a better choice; the following should show the proper way to use the capture groups...]
The answer given using the 'zero-width negative lookahead' operator "?!", with capture groups, is: (?:START)((?!.*START).*)(?:END) which captures the inner text using $1 for the replace. If you want to have the START and END tags captured you could do (START)((?!.*START).*)(END) which gives $1=START $2=text and $3=END or various other permutations by adding/removing ()s or ?:s.
That way if you are using it to do search and replace, you can do, something like BEGIN$1FINISH. So, if you started with:
abcSTARTdefSTARTghiENDjkl
you would get ghi as capture group 1, and replacing with BEGIN$1FINISH would give you the following:
abcSTARTdefBEGINghiFINISHjkl
which would allow you to change your START/END tokens only when paired properly.
Each (x) is a group, but I have put (?:x) for each of the ones except the middle which marks it as a non-capturing group; the only one I left without a ?: was the middle; however, you could also conceivably capture the BEGIN/END tokens as well if you wanted to move them around or what-have-you.
See the Java regex documentation for full details on Java regexes.
Well, here I am back at regex and my poor understanding of it. Spent more time learning it and this is what I came up with:
/(.*)
I basically want the number in this string:
510973
My regex is almost good? my original was:
"/<a href=\"travis.php?theTaco(.*)\">(.*)<\/a>/";
But sometimes it returned me huge strings. So, I just want to get numbers only.
I searched through other posts but there is such a large amount of unrelated material, please give an example, resource, or a link directing to a very related question.
Thank you.
Try using a HTML parser provided by the language you are using.
Reason why your first regex fails:
[0-9999999] is not what you think. It is same as [0-9] which matches one digit. To match a number you need [0-9]+. Also .* is greedy and will try to match as much as it can. You can use .*? to make it non-greedy. Since you are trying to match a number again, use [0-9]+ again instead of .*. Also if the two number you are capturing will be the same, you can just match the first and use a back reference \1 for 2nd one.
And there are a few regex meta-characters which you need to escape like ., ?.
Try:
<a href=\"travis\.php\?theTaco=([0-9]+)\">\1<\/a>
To capture a number, you don't use a range like [0-99999], you capture by digit. Something like [0-9]+ is more like what you want for that section. Also, escaping is important like codaddict said.
Others have already mentioned some issues regarding your regex, so I won't bother repeating them.
There are also issues regarding how you specified what it is you want. You can simply match via
/theTaco=(\d+)/
and take the first capturing group. You have not given us enough information to know whether this suits your needs.