Can someone please illustrate it what is the difference between the following regular expressions?
/b\w+?/g
and
/b\w/g
based on the documentation of regexr for Lazy ?:Makes the preceding quantifier lazy, causing it to match as few characters as possible. By default, quantifiers are greedy, and will match as many characters as possible.
Both regexes will match the same thing (one "alphanumeric" character). The difference between them becomes noticeable only when the regex becomes more complex.
For example,
\b\w\.
will match "A." but not "Mr." because \w matches only one character.
\b\w+?\.
will match both. This hasn't yet to do with the laziness but with the lack of a quantifier in the first regex. But if you compare
\b\w+\d
and
\b\w+?\d
you'll notice an important difference: Both regexes will match the string "R2D2" differently - the first one matches "R2D2", the second one only matches "R2" because the ? tells the \w+ token to match as few characters as possible, so it stops the match after R (even though it could match more. It will only match more if the regex wouldn't match otherwise).
Related
What does this combination of quantifiers *? mean?
Use this as the following example:
([0-9][AB]*?)
It's a non-greedy match. In [AB]*?, the regex looks for as few occurrences of [AB] as needed to make the overall regex match the searched string, whereas the greedy version [AB]* looks for as many occurrences as possible. It is a feature of Perl's regexes, and hence available in PCRE (Perl Compatible Regular Expressions) (see repetition) and other systems that look to Perl for their definition.
The PCRE page gives an example:
The classic example of where [greediness] gives problems is in trying to match comments in C programs. These appear between /* and */ and within the comment, individual * and / characters may appear. An attempt to match C comments by applying the pattern:
/\*.*\*/
to the string
/* first comment */ not comment /* second comment */
fails, because it matches the entire string owing to the greediness of the .* item.
If a quantifier is followed by a question mark, it ceases to be greedy, and instead matches the minimum number of times possible, so the pattern
/\*.*?\*/
does the right thing with the C comments.
Jonathan already explained the difference, but here's an example that might help you understand what's happening here.
Given the string "9AB":
([0-9][AB]*?) matches only "9A" because it stop as soon as "A" matched (lazy)
([0-9][AB]*) matches the whole string ("9AB") because it consumes "A" and successes to match the following "B" (greedy)
Note that the second one will match a digit, followed by zero or more (unlimited) number of "A" or "B"s.
g -- This option finds all occurrences of the pattern in the string
Does that mean that it is greedy? Because it makes the regex engine parse the entire string and not return at the first match. That is what non greedy matching is meant right. Can it be even classified as greedy or non greedy?
g is the global flag. It means that it will keep looking for matches after it finds one.
g is not greedy. The term greedy in regex is used to indicate that a token will match as many characters as possible, giving back as needed. Eg. \w+
A possessive match indicates that a token will match as many characters as possible, without giving back. Eg. \w++
Greedy will consume as much as possible.
So for example <.+> will match whole <EM>first</EM>
However <.+?> will match only <EM> as it is lazy matching.
Now you must understand that /g modifier can be used with both greedy matching and lazy matching.
For example,
<EM>first</EM>
and you use <.+>/g it will replace full expression with specified one.
However <.+?>/g will replace <EM> and </EM> only with specified expression.
I am looking through some old code bases and have come across two regular expression parts that I think are semantically identical. Wondering it the Stackoverflow community can confirm my understanding.
RegEx 1: (.+?) - One or more characters, but optional
RegEx 2: (.*) - Zero or more characters
I keep thinking of different scenarios but can't think of any input where both expressions wouldn't be the same.
(.+?) means match one or more character, but instead of the default greedy matching (match as much as possible), the ? after the quantifier makes the matching lazy (match as few as possible).
Conceptually, greedy matching will first try the longest possible sequence that can be formed by the pattern inside, then gradually reduce the length of the sequence as the engine backtracks. Lazy matching will first try the shortest possible sequence that can be formed by the pattern inside, then gradually increase the length of the sequence as the engine backtracks.
Therefore, (.+?) and (.*) are completely different. Given a string "abc", the pattern (.+?) will match "a" for the first match, while (.*) will match "abc" for the first match.
When you correct the pattern to the intended meaning: ((?:.+)?), it is exactly the same as (.*) in behavior. Since quantifier is greedy by default, ((?:.+)?) will first try the case of .+ before attempting the case of empty string. And .+ will try the longest sequence before the 1 character sequence. Therefore, the effect of ((?:.+)?) is exactly the same as (.*): it will find the longest sequence and backtrack gradually to the case of empty string.
First,
. is any character
Next
* is zero or more
+ is one or more
? is one or zero
You're thinking that .+? is one or more of any character and 0 or 1 of them I'm guessing?
You're missing this:
Lazy modifier
*? is zero or more getting as few as possible
+? is one or more getting as few as possible
See here for further discussion
Greedy vs. Reluctant vs. Possessive Quantifiers
I'm trying to split up a string into two parts using regex. The string is formatted as follows:
text to extract<number>
I've been using (.*?)< and <(.*?)> which work fine but after reading into regex a little, I've just started to wonder why I need the ? in the expressions. I've only done it like that after finding them through this site so I'm not exactly sure what the difference is.
On greedy vs non-greedy
Repetition in regex by default is greedy: they try to match as many reps as possible, and when this doesn't work and they have to backtrack, they try to match one fewer rep at a time, until a match of the whole pattern is found. As a result, when a match finally happens, a greedy repetition would match as many reps as possible.
The ? as a repetition quantifier changes this behavior into non-greedy, also called reluctant (in e.g. Java) (and sometimes "lazy"). In contrast, this repetition will first try to match as few reps as possible, and when this doesn't work and they have to backtrack, they start matching one more rept a time. As a result, when a match finally happens, a reluctant repetition would match as few reps as possible.
References
regular-expressions.info/Repetition - Laziness instead of Greediness
Example 1: From A to Z
Let's compare these two patterns: A.*Z and A.*?Z.
Given the following input:
eeeAiiZuuuuAoooZeeee
The patterns yield the following matches:
A.*Z yields 1 match: AiiZuuuuAoooZ (see on rubular.com)
A.*?Z yields 2 matches: AiiZ and AoooZ (see on rubular.com)
Let's first focus on what A.*Z does. When it matched the first A, the .*, being greedy, first tries to match as many . as possible.
eeeAiiZuuuuAoooZeeee
\_______________/
A.* matched, Z can't match
Since the Z doesn't match, the engine backtracks, and .* must then match one fewer .:
eeeAiiZuuuuAoooZeeee
\______________/
A.* matched, Z still can't match
This happens a few more times, until finally we come to this:
eeeAiiZuuuuAoooZeeee
\__________/
A.* matched, Z can now match
Now Z can match, so the overall pattern matches:
eeeAiiZuuuuAoooZeeee
\___________/
A.*Z matched
By contrast, the reluctant repetition in A.*?Z first matches as few . as possible, and then taking more . as necessary. This explains why it finds two matches in the input.
Here's a visual representation of what the two patterns matched:
eeeAiiZuuuuAoooZeeee
\__/r \___/r r = reluctant
\____g____/ g = greedy
Example: An alternative
In many applications, the two matches in the above input is what is desired, thus a reluctant .*? is used instead of the greedy .* to prevent overmatching. For this particular pattern, however, there is a better alternative, using negated character class.
The pattern A[^Z]*Z also finds the same two matches as the A.*?Z pattern for the above input (as seen on ideone.com). [^Z] is what is called a negated character class: it matches anything but Z.
The main difference between the two patterns is in performance: being more strict, the negated character class can only match one way for a given input. It doesn't matter if you use greedy or reluctant modifier for this pattern. In fact, in some flavors, you can do even better and use what is called possessive quantifier, which doesn't backtrack at all.
References
regular-expressions.info/Repetition - An Alternative to Laziness, Negated Character Classes and Possessive Quantifiers
Example 2: From A to ZZ
This example should be illustrative: it shows how the greedy, reluctant, and negated character class patterns match differently given the same input.
eeAiiZooAuuZZeeeZZfff
These are the matches for the above input:
A[^Z]*ZZ yields 1 match: AuuZZ (as seen on ideone.com)
A.*?ZZ yields 1 match: AiiZooAuuZZ (as seen on ideone.com)
A.*ZZ yields 1 match: AiiZooAuuZZeeeZZ (as seen on ideone.com)
Here's a visual representation of what they matched:
___n
/ \ n = negated character class
eeAiiZooAuuZZeeeZZfff r = reluctant
\_________/r / g = greedy
\____________/g
Related topics
These are links to questions and answers on stackoverflow that cover some topics that may be of interest.
One greedy repetition can outgreed another
Regex not being greedy enough
Regular expression: who's greedier
It is the difference between greedy and non-greedy quantifiers.
Consider the input 101000000000100.
Using 1.*1, * is greedy - it will match all the way to the end, and then backtrack until it can match 1, leaving you with 1010000000001.
.*? is non-greedy. * will match nothing, but then will try to match extra characters until it matches 1, eventually matching 101.
All quantifiers have a non-greedy mode: .*?, .+?, .{2,6}?, and even .??.
In your case, a similar pattern could be <([^>]*)> - matching anything but a greater-than sign (strictly speaking, it matches zero or more characters other than > in-between < and >).
See Quantifier Cheat Sheet.
Let's say you have:
<a></a>
<(.*)> would match a></a where as <(.*?)> would match a.
The latter stops after the first match of >. It checks for one
or 0 matches of .* followed by the next expression.
The first expression <(.*)> doesn't stop when matching the first >. It will continue until the last match of >.
How would the '.+?' regular expression work? Is the .+ part matching anything written, and the ? part saying it can either be there or not? So, for example, this regular expression would match:
'cat'
'' (ie, nothing written, just the empty string)
The "+?" is not a "+" quantifier followed by a "?" quantifier. Instead the "?" modifies the "+" to perform a "lazy" or "non greedy" match, meaning that the least number of characters that match is already sufficient.
So a "a+?" regex would match just a single "a" in "caaat".
Besides what Hans Kesting already said, a lazy multiplier will do the exact oposite of the normal greedy multipliers: The possible match is kept as small as possible and the rest of the regular expression is tested.
So if you’re having the string aaba and test the regular expression a.*b on it, the internal processing steps would be as follows:
a in a.*b matches aaba
.* in a.*b matches aaba, and since .* is greedy
.* then matches aaba
.* then matches aaba
b in a.*b fails as there is no letter left
backtracking goes one step back and .* will now only match bb in aaba
b in a.*b still fails on aaba
backtracking goes one step back and .* now matches only b in aaba
b in a.*b now matches b in aaba and we’re done.
So the full match is aaba.
If we do the same with a lazy multiplier (a.*?b), the processing will do the oposite, try to match the least possible characters as possible:
a in a.*?b matches aaba
.* in a.*?b matches nothing (* = zero or more repetitions), and since .* is declared as lazy (.*?), the rest of the regular expression is tested
b in a.*?b fails on aaba
backtracking will try to increase the match of .*
.* matches now aaba
b in a.*?b matches aaba and we’re done.
So the full match if aaba.
+? (lazy plus)
Repeats the previous item once or
more. Lazy, so the engine first
matches the previous item only once,
before trying permutations with ever
increasing matches of the preceding
item.
/".+?"/ matches "def" (and "ghi") in abc "def" "ghi" jkl, while /".+"/ matches "def" "ghi".
You can find more info here
There is documentation on how Perl handles these quantifiers perldoc perlre.
By default, a quantified subpattern is "greedy", that is, it will match as many times as possible (given a particular starting location) while still allowing the rest of the pattern to match. If you want it to match the minimum number of times possible, follow the quantifier with a "?". Note that the meanings don't change, just the "greediness":
*? Match 0 or more times, not greedily
+? Match 1 or more times, not greedily
?? Match 0 or 1 time, not greedily
{n}? Match exactly n times, not greedily
{n,}? Match at least n times, not greedily
{n,m}? Match at least n but not more than m times, not greedily
By default, when a quantified subpattern does not allow the rest of the overall pattern to match, Perl will backtrack. However, this behaviour is sometimes undesirable. Thus Perl provides the "possessive" quantifier form as well.
*+ Match 0 or more times and give nothing back
++ Match 1 or more times and give nothing back
?+ Match 0 or 1 time and give nothing back
{n}+ Match exactly n times and give nothing back (redundant)
{n,}+ Match at least n times and give nothing back
{n,m}+ Match at least n but not more than m times and give nothing back
For instance,
'aaaa' =~ /a++a/
will never match, as the a++ will gobble up all the a 's in the string and won't leave any for the remaining part of the pattern. This feature can be extremely useful to give perl hints about where it shouldn't backtrack. For instance, the typical "match a double-quoted string" problem can be most efficiently performed when written as:
/"(?:[^"\\]++|\\.)*+"/
as we know that if the final quote does not match, backtracking will not help. See the independent subexpression (?>...) for more details; possessive quantifiers are just syntactic sugar for that construct. For instance the above example could also be written as follows:
/"(?>(?:(?>[^"\\]+)|\\.)*)"/
link
inevitably, the regex is going to look for at least one character. I've come across case where an empty string wouldn't pass that test already, it would be better to use .*? or (.*)? instead, sometimes you have to specify the part of the string which may be null in braces before the question mark, it helps. E.g. \d{6}? will yield a wrong result, whereas if I had said (\d{6})? in a string say for example:
preg_match("/shu\.(\d{6})?/", "shu.321456")
this will yield true and so will the string "shu." without any int after the period