Assume I have an occurence
GET.CUSTOMER:
and an occurence
GET.ACCOUNT:
How should the Regex expression be formulated if I want the above occurence to be matched only and only if there is no occurence of word
RETURN
Between
GET.CUSTOMER:
BLOCK OF CODE
and
GET.ACCOUNT:
ANOTHER BLOCK OF CODE
For this to be generic, assume that an anchored colon is only allowed in function name, so there can be no colons "stuck" to a word other than the function's name. I.e
RANDOM.FUNCTION:
Is allowed, but
RANDOM.LINE.OF.CODE : MORE.CODE
Is not allowed, except in a string within quotes and apostrophes.
This matching will be used in a Vim syntax file, and not in actual code.
#EDIT
The question: Is the above even possible? Which regex expressions should I look into that might help me solve this?
The following will match GET.CUSTOMER:, if it is followed by GET.ACCOUNT:, but there's no RETURN in between the two. You might need to tweak this a bit; I've left our keyword boundary assertions and other fluff here. Also, as this is a multi-line match, it might be slow or break down if there are too many lines in between.
syntax match getCustomerBlockWithoutReturn
\ "\%#=1\%(GET\.CUSTOMER:\_.\{-}\%(RETURN\|GET\.ACCOUNT:\)\)\#>\%(GET\.ACCOUNT:\)\#<="
\ contains=getCustomer
syntax match getCustomer "GET\.CUSTOMER:" contained
hi link getCustomer Statement
The first getCustomerBlockWithoutReturn matches the whole block. getCustomer is contained in the former (the contained prevents matching outside of it) and performs the highlighting via the :highlight group. This is because you only want to highlight the word that starts the block, not the whole block itself.
The main challenge with this regular expression is that usually, backtracking tries really hard to find a match, and it would skip over GET.ACCOUNT: ... GET.CUSTOMER: parts just to find a RETURN and make the match, even if that spans multiple actual blocks.
By using the (obscure) whole pattern multi (:help /\#>), we're preventing backtracking and match a minimal (via \{-}) area (including newlines by using \_. instead of .) from GET.CUSTOMER: to either RETURN or GET.ACCOUNT:. A positive lookbehind (via /\#<=) then asserts that this end actually is GET.ACCOUNT:, i.e. that we have a block without a RETURN in it. (Note: At least in my Vim version 8.1.536, I had to force use of the older regexp engine via \%#=1; I have reported that bug to the Vim developers.)
I have this regex which scans a text for the word very: (?i)(?:^|\W)(very)[\W$] which works. My goal is to upgrade it and avoid doing a match if very is within quotes, standalone or as part of a longer block.
Now, I have this other regex which is matching anything NOT inside curly quotes: (?<![\S"])([^"]+)(?![\S"]) which also works.
My problem is that I cannot seem to combine them. For example the string:
Fred Smith very loudly said yesterday at a press conference that fresh peas will "very, very defintely not" be served at the upcoming county fair. In this bit we have 3 instances of very but I'm only interested in matching the first one and ignore the whole Smith quotation.
What you describe is kind of tricky to handle with a regular expression. It's difficult to determine whether you are inside a quote. Your second regex is not effective as it only ignores the first very that is directly to the right of the quote and still matches the second one.
Drawing inspiration from this answer, that in turn references another answer that describes how to regex match a pattern unless ... I can capture the matches you want.
The basic idea is to use alternation | and match all the things you don't want and then finally match (and capture) what you do want in the final clause. Something like this:
"[^"]*"|(very)
We match quoted strings in the first clause but we don't capture them in a group and then we match (and capture) the word very in the second clause. You can find this match in the captured group. How you reference a captured group depends on your regex environment.
See this regex101 fiddle for a test case.
This regex
(?i)(?<!(((?<DELIMITER>[ \t\r\n\v\f]+)(")(?<FILLER>((?!").)*))))\bvery\b(?!(((?<FILLER2>((?!").)*)(")(?<DELIMITER2>[ \t\r\n\v\f]+))))
could work under two conditions:
your regex engine allows unlimited lookbehind
quotes are delimited by spaces
Try it on http://regexstorm.net/tester
The following is in PHP but the regex will also be used in javascript.
Trying to extract repeating patterns from a string
string can be any of the following:
"something arbitrary"
"D123"
"D111|something"
"D197|what.org|when.net"
"D297|who.197d234.whatever|when.net|some other arbitrary string"
I'm currently using the following regex: /^D([0-9]{3})(?:\|([^\|]+))*/
This correctly does not match the first string, matches the second and third correctly. The problem is the third and fourth only match the Dxxx and the last string. I need each of the strings between the '|' to be matched.
I'm hoping to use a regex as it makes it a single step. I realize I could just detect the leading Dxxx then use explode or split as appropriate to break the strings out. I've just gotten stuck on wanting a single regular expression match step.
This same regex may be used in Python as well so just want a generic regex solution.
There is no way to have a dynamic number of capture groups in a regular expression, but if you know some upper limit to how many parts you would have in one string, you can just repeat the pattern that many times:
/^D([0-9]{3})(?:$|\|)(.*?)(?:$|\|)(.*?)(?:$|\|)(.*?)(?:$|\|)(.*?)(?:$|\|)/
So after the initial ^D([0-9]{3})(?:$|\|) you just repeat (.*?)(?:$|\|) as many times as you need it.
When the string has fewer elements, those remaining capture groups will match the empty string.
See regex tester.
Is something like preg_match_all() (the PHP variant of a global match) also acceptable for you?
Then you could use:
^(?|D([0-9]{3})|^.+$|(?!^)\|([^|\n]*)(?=\||$))
This will match everything in a string in different matches, e.g. take your string:
D197|what.org|when.net
It will you then give three matches:
D197
what.org
when.net
Running live: https://regex101.com/r/jL2oX6/4 (Everything in green are your group matches. Ignore what's in blue.)
How come for something that simple I can't find an answer after looking one hour in the internet?
I have this sentence:
HeLLo woRLd HOw are YoU
I want to capture all groups that consist of two following capital letters
[A-Z]{2}
The regex above works but capture only LL (the first two capital letters) while I want LL in one group and in the other groups also RL HO
Most regular expression engines expose some way to make your expression global. This means that your expression will applied multiple times. This global flag is usually denoted with the /g marker at the end of your expression. This is your regular expression without the /g flag, while this is what happens when you apply said flag.
Different languages expose such functionality differently, in C# for instance, this is done through the Regex.Matches syntax. In Java, you use while(matcher.find()), which keeps providing sub strings which match the pattern provided.
EDIT: I am not a Python person, but judging from the example available here, you could do something like so:
it = re.finditer(r"[A-Z]{2}", "HeLLo woRLd HOw are YoU")
for match in it:
print "'{g}' was found between the indices {s}".format(g=match.group(), s=match.span())
You can not have multiple groups in this case, but you can have multiple matches. Add the global flag to your regex and use a method to match the regex.
For javscript, it would be /[A-Z]{2}/g.
The method most probably returns an Array of matches, and you can use index to access them.
Many regex questions lately have some kind of look-around element in the query that appears to me is not necessary to the success of the match. Is there some teaching resource that is promoting them? I am trying to figure out what kinds of cases you would be better off using a positive look ahead/behind. The main application I can see is when trying to not match an element. But, for example, this query from a recent question has a simple solution to capturing the .*, but why would you use a look behind?
(?<=<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">).*(?=<\/a><span
And this one from another question:
$url = "www.example.com/id/1234";
preg_match("/\d+(?<=id\/[\d])/",$url,$matches);
When is it truly better to use a positive look-around? Can you give some examples?
I realize this is bordering on an opinion-based question, but I think the answers would be really instructive. Regex is confusing enough without making things more complicated... I have read this page and am more interested in some simple guidelines for when to use them rather than how they work.
Thanks for all the replies. In addition to those below, I recommend checking out m.buettner's great answer here.
You can capture overlapping matches, and you can find matches which could lie in the lookarounds of other matches.
You can express complex logical assertions about your match (because many engines let you use multiple lookbehind/lookahead assertions which all must match in order for the match to succeed).
Lookaround is a natural way to express the common constraint "matches X, if it is followed by/preceded by Y". It is (arguably) less natural to add extra "matching" parts that have to be thrown out by postprocessing.
Negative lookaround assertions, of course, are even more useful. Combined with #2, they can allow you do some pretty wizard tricks, which may even be hard to express in usual program logic.
Examples, by popular request:
Overlapping matches: suppose you want to find all candidate genes in a given genetic sequence. Genes generally start with ATG, and end with TAG, TAA or TGA. But, candidates could overlap: false starts may exist. So, you can use a regex like this:
ATG(?=((?:...)*(?:TAG|TAA|TGA)))
This simple regex looks for the ATG start-codon, followed by some number of codons, followed by a stop codon. It pulls out everything that looks like a gene (sans start codon), and properly outputs genes even if they overlap.
Zero-width matching: suppose you want to find every tr with a specific class in a computer-generated HTML page. You might do something like this:
<tr class="TableRow">.*?</tr>(?=<tr class="TableRow">|</table>)
This deals with the case in which a bare </tr> appears inside the row. (Of course, in general, an HTML parser is a better choice, but sometimes you just need something quick and dirty).
Multiple constraints: suppose you have a file with data like id:tag1,tag2,tag3,tag4, with tags in any order, and you want to find all rows with tags "green" and "egg". This can be done easily with two lookaheads:
(.*):(?=.*\bgreen\b)(?=.*\begg\b)
There are two great things about lookaround expressions:
They are zero-width assertions. They require to be matched, but they consume nothing of the input string. This allows to describe parts of the string which will not be contained in a match result. By using capturing groups in lookaround expressions, they are the only way to capture parts of the input multiple times.
They simplify a lot of things. While they do not extend regular languages, they easily allow to combine (intersect) multiple expressions to match the same part of a string.
Well one simple case where they are handy is when you are anchoring the pattern to the start or finish of a line, and just want to make sure that something is either right ahead or behind the pattern you are matching.
I try to address your points:
some kind of look-around element in the query that appears to me is not necessary to the success of the match
Of course they are necessary for the match. As soon as a lookaround assertions fails, there is no match. They can be used to ensure conditions around the pattern, that have additionally to be true. The whole regex does only match, if:
The pattern does fit and
The lookaround assertions are true.
==> But the returned match is only the pattern.
When is it truly better to use a positive look-around?
Simple answer: when you want stuff to be there, but you don't want to match it!
As Bergi mentioned in his answer, they are zero width assertions, this means they don't match a character sequence, they just ensure it is there. So the characters inside a lookaround expression are not "consumed", the regex engine continues after the last "consumed" character.
Regarding your first example:
(?<=<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">).*(?=<\/a><span
I think there is a misunderstanding on your side, when you write "has a simple solution to capturing the .*". The .* is not "captured", it is the only thing that the expression does match. But only those characters are matched that have a "<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">" before and a "<\/a><span" after (those two are not part of the match!).
"Captured" is only something that has been matched by a capturing group.
The second example
\d+(?<=id\/[\d])
Is interesting. It is matching a sequence of digits (\d+) and after the sequence, the lookbehind assertion checks if there is one digit with "id/" before it. Means it will fail if there is more than one digit or if the text "id/" before the digit is missing. Means this regex is matching only one digit, when there is fitting text before.
teaching resources
www.regular-expressions.info
perlretut on Looking ahead and looking behind
I'm assuming you understand the good uses of lookarounds, and ask why they are used with no apparent reason.
I think there are four main categories of how people use regular expressions:
Validation
Validation is usually done on the whole text. Lookarounds like you describe are not possible.
Match
Extracting a part of the text. Lookarounds are used mainly due to developer laziness: avoiding captures.
For example, if we have in a settings file with the line Index=5, we can match /^Index=(\d+)/ and take the first group, or match /(?<=^Index=)\d+/ and take everything.
As other answers said, sometimes you need overlapping between matches, but these are relatively rare.
Replace
This is similar to match with one difference: the whole match is removed and is being replaced with a new string (and some captured groups).
Example: we want to highlight the name in "Hi, my name is Bob!".
We can replace /(name is )(\w+)/ with $1<b>$2</b>,
but it is neater to replace /(?<=name is )\w+/ with <b>$&</b> - and no captures at all.
Split
split takes the text and breaks it to an array of tokens, with your pattern being the delimiter. This is done by:
Find a match. Everything before this match is token.
The content of the match is discarded, but:
In most flavors, each captured group in the match is also a token (notably not in Java).
When there are no more matches, the rest of the text is the last token.
Here, lookarounds are crucial. Matching a character means removing it from the result, or at least separating it from its token.
Example: We have a comma separated list of quoted string: "Hello","Hi, I'm Jim."
Splitting by comma /,/ is wrong: {"Hello", "Hi, I'm Jim."}
We can't add the quote mark, /",/: {"Hello, "Hi, I'm Jim."}
The only good option is lookbehind, /(?<="),/: {"Hello", "Hi, I'm Jim."}
Personally, I prefer to match the tokens rather than split by the delimiter, whenever that is possible.
Conclusion
To answer the main question - these lookarounds are used because:
Sometimes you can't match text that need.
Developers are shiftless.
Lookaround assertions can also be used to reduce backtracking which can be the main cause for a bad performance in regexes.
For example: The regex ^[0-9A-Z]([-.\w]*[0-9A-Z])*#(1) can also be written ^[0-9A-Z][-.\w]*(?<=[0-9A-Z])#(2) using a positive look behind (simple validation of the user name in an e-mail address).
Regex (1) can cause a lot of backtracking essentially because [0-9A-Z] is a subset of [-.\w] and the nested quantifiers. Regex (2) reduces the excessive backtracking, more information here Backtracking, section Controlling Backtracking > Lookbehind Assertions.
For more information about backtracking
Best Practices for Regular Expressions in the .NET Framework
Optimizing Regular Expression Performance, Part II: Taking Charge of Backtracking
Runaway Regular Expressions: Catastrophic Backtracking
I typed this a while back but got busy (still am, so I might take a while to reply back) and didn't get around to post it. If you're still open to answers...
Is there some teaching resource that is promoting them?
I don't think so, it's just a coincidence I believe.
But, for example, this query from a recent question has a simple solution to capturing the .*, but why would you use a look behind?
(?<=<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">).*(?=<\/a><span
This is most probably a C# regex, since variable width lookbehinds are not supported my many regex engines. Well, the lookarounds could be certainly avoided here, because for this, I believe it's really simpler to have capture groups (and make the .* lazy as we're at it):
(<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0,5}">).*?(<\/a><span)
If it's for a replace, or
<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0,5}">(.*?)<\/a><span
for a match. Though an html parser would definitely be more advisable here.
Lookarounds in this case I believe are slower. See regex101 demo where the match is 64 steps for capture groups but 94+19 = 1-3 steps for the lookarounds.
When is it truly better to use a positive look-around? Can you give some examples?
Well, lookarounds have the property of being zero-width assertions, which mean they don't really comtribute to matches while they contribute onto deciding what to match and also allows overlapping matches.
Thinking a bit about it, I think, too, that negative lookarounds get used much more often, but that doesn't make positive lookarounds less useful!
Some 'exploits' I can find browsing some old answers of mine (links below will be demos from regex101) follow. When/If you see something you're not familiar about, I probably won't be explaining it here, since the question's focused on positive lookarounds, but you can always look at the demo links I provided where there's a description of the regex, and if you still want some explanation, let me know and I'll try to explain as much as I can.
To get matches between certain characters:
In some matches, positive lookahead make things easier, where a lookahead could do as well, or when it's not so practical to use no lookarounds:
Dog sighed. "I'm no super dog, nor special dog," said Dog, "I'm an ordinary dog, now leave me alone!" Dog pushed him away and made his way to the other dog.
We want to get all the dog (regardless of case) outside quotes. With a positive lookahead, we can do this:
\bdog\b(?=(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*$)
to ensure that there are even number of quotes ahead. With a negative lookahead, it would look like this:
\bdog\b(?!(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*"[^"]*$)
to ensure that there are no odd number of quotes ahead. Or use something like this if you don't want a lookahead, but you'll have to extract the group 1 matches:
(?:"[^"]+"[^"]+?)?(\bdog\b)
Okay, now say we want the opposite; find 'dog' inside the quotes. The regex with the lookarounds just need to have the sign inversed, first and second:
\bdog\b(?!(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*$)
\bdog\b(?=(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*"[^"]*$)
But without the lookaheads, it's not possible. the closest you can get is maybe this:
"[^"]*(\bdog\b)[^"]*"
But this doesn't get all the matches, or you can maybe use this:
"[^"]*?(\bdog\b)[^"]*?(?:(\bdog\b)[^"]*?)?"
But it's just not practical for more occurrences of dog and you get the results in variables with increasing numbers... And this is indeed easier with lookarounds, because they are zero width assertions, you don't have to worry about the expression inside the lookaround to match dog or not, or the regex wouldn't have obtained all the occurrences of dog in the quotes.
Of course now, this logic can be extended to groups of characters, such as getting specific patterns between words such as start and end.
Overlapping matches
If you have a string like:
abcdefghijkl
And want to extract all the consecutive 3 characters possible inside, you can use this:
(?=(...))
If you have something like:
1A Line1 Detail1 Detail2 Detail3 2A Line2 Detail 3A Line3 Detail Detail
And want to extract these, knowing that each line starts with #A Line# (where # is a number):
1A Line1 Detail1 Detail2 Detail3
2A Line2 Detail
3A Line3 Detail Detail
You might try this, which fails because of greediness...
[0-9]+A Line[0-9]+(?: \w+)+
Or this, which when made lazy no more works...
[0-9]+A Line[0-9]+(?: \w+)+?
But with a positive lookahead, you get this:
[0-9]+A Line[0-9]+(?: \w+)+?(?= [0-9]+A Line[0-9]+|$)
And appropriately extracts what's needed.
Another possible situation is one where you have something like this:
#ff00fffirstword#445533secondword##008877thi#rdword#
Which you want to convert to three pairs of variables (first of the pair being a # and some hex values (6) and whatever characters after them):
#ff00ff and firstword
#445533 and secondword#
#008877 and thi#rdword#
If there were no hashes inside the 'words', it would have been enough to use (#[0-9a-f]{6})([^#]+), but unfortunately, that's not the case and you have to resort to .*? instead of [^#]+, which doesn't quite yet solve the issue of stray hashes. Positive lookaheads however make this possible:
(#[0-9a-f]{6})(.+?)(?=#[0-9a-f]{6}|$)
Validation & Formatting
Not recommended, but you can use positive lookaheads for quick validations. The following regex for instance allow the entry of a string containing at least 1 digit and 1 lowercase letter.
^(?=[^0-9]*[0-9])(?=[^a-z]*[a-z])
This can be useful when you're checking for character length but have patterns of varying length in the a string, for example, a 4 character long string with valid formats where # indicates a digit and the hyphen/dash/minus - must be in the middle:
##-#
#-##
A regex like this does the trick:
^(?=.{4}$)\d+-\d+
Where otherwise, you'd do ^(?:[0-9]{2}-[0-9]|[0-9]-[0-9]{2})$ and imagine now that the max length was 15; the number of alterations you'd need.
If you want a quick and dirty way to rearrange some dates in the 'messed up' format mmm-yyyy and yyyy-mm to a more uniform format mmm-yyyy, you can use this:
(?=.*(\b\w{3}\b))(?=.*(\b\d{4}\b)).*
Input:
Oct-2013
2013-Oct
Output:
Oct-2013
Oct-2013
An alternative might be to use a regex (normal match) and process separately all the non-conforming formats separately.
Something else I came across on SO was the indian currency format, which was ##,##,###.### (3 digits to the left of the decimal and all other digits groupped in pair). If you have an input of 122123123456.764244, you expect 1,22,12,31,23,456.764244 and if you want to use a regex, this one does this:
\G\d{1,2}\K\B(?=(?:\d{2})*\d{3}(?!\d))
(The (?:\G|^) in the link is only used because \G matches only at the start of the string and after a match) and I don't think this could work without the positive lookahead, since it looks forward without moving the point of replacement.)
Trimming
Suppose you have:
this is a sentence
And want to trim all the spaces with a single regex. You might be tempted to do a general replace on spaces:
\s+
But this yields thisisasentence. Well, maybe replace with a single space? It now yields " this is a sentence " (double quotes used because backticks eats spaces). Something you can however do is this:
^\s*|\s$|\s+(?=\s)
Which makes sure to leave one space behind so that you can replace with nothing and get "this is a sentence".
Splitting
Well, somewhere else where positive lookarounds might be useful is where, say you have a string ABC12DE3456FGHI789 and want to get the letters+digits apart, that is you want to get ABC12, DE3456 and FGHI789. You can easily do use the regex:
(?<=[0-9])(?=[A-Z])
While if you use ([A-Z]+[0-9]+) (i.e. the captured groups are put back in the resulting list/array/etc, you will be getting empty elements as well.
Note that this could be done with a match as well, with [A-Z]+[0-9]+
If I had to mention negative lookarounds, this post would have been even longer :)
Keep in mind that a positive/negative lookaround is the same for a regex engine. The goal of lookarounds is to perform a check somewhere in your "regular expression".
One of the main interest is to capture something without using capturing parenthesis (capturing the whole pattern), example:
string: aaabbbccc
regex: (?<=aaa)bbb(?=ccc)
(you obtain the result with the whole pattern)
instead of: aaa(bbb)ccc
(you obtain the result with the capturing group.)