Related
I am trying to find the appropriate regex pattern that allows me to pick out whole words either starting with or ending with a comma, but leave out numbers. I've come up with ([\w]+,) which matches the first word followed by a comma, so in something like:
red,1,yellow,4
red, will match, but I am trying to find a solution that will match like like the following:
red, 1 ,yellow, 4
I haven't been able to find anything that can break strings up like this, but hopefully you'll be able to help!
This regex
,?[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*,?
Matches 'words' optionally enclose with commas. No spaces between commas and the 'word' are permitted and the word must start with an alphanumeric.
See here for a demo.
To ascertain that at least one comma is matched, use the alternation syntax:
(,[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*|[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*,)
Unfortunately no regex engine that i am aware of supports cascaded matching. However, since you usually operate with regexen in the context of programming environments, you could repeatedly match against a regex and take the matched substring for further matches. This can be achieved by chaining or iterated function calls using speical delimiter chars (which must be guaranteed not to occur in the test strings).
Example (Javascript):
"red, 1 ,yellow, 4, red1, 1yellow yellow"
.replace(/(,?[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*,?)/g, "<$1>")
.replace(/<[^,>]+>/g, "")
.replace(/>[^>]+(<|$)/g, "> $1")
.replace(/^[^<]+</g, "<")
In this example, the (simple) regex is tested for first. The call returns a sequence of preliminary matches delimted by angle brackets. Matches that do not contain the required substring (, in this case) are eliminated, as is all intervening material.
This technique might produce code that is easier to maintain than a complicated regex.
However, as a rule of thumb, if your regex gets too complicated to be easily maintained, a good guess is that it hasn't been the right tool in the first place (Many engines provide the x matching modifier that allows you to intersperse whitespace - namely line breaks and spaces - and comments at will).
The issue with your expression is that:
- \w resolves to this: [a-zA-Z0-9_]. This includes numeric data which you do not want.
- You have the comma at the end, this will match foo, but not ,foo.
To fix this, you can do something like so: (,\s*[a-z]+)|([a-z]+\s*,). An example is available here.
I am very new to regex and regular expressions, and I am stuck in a situation where I want to apply a regex on an JSF input field.
Where
alphanumeric
multiple spaces
multiple dot(.)
multiple hyphen (‐)
are allowed, and Minimum limit is 1 and Maximum limit is 5.
And for multiple values - they must be separated by comma (,)
So a Single value can be:
3kd-R
or
k3
or
-4
And multiple values (must be comma separated):
kdk30,3.K-4,ER--U,2,.I3,
By the help of stackoverflow, so far I am able to achieve only this:
(^[a-zA-Z0-9 ]{5}(,[a-zA-Z0-9 ]{5})*$)
Something like
^[-.a-zA-Z0-9 ]{1,5}(,[-.a-zA-Z0-9 ]{1,5})*$
Changes made
[-.a-zA-Z0-9 ] Added - and . to the character class so that those are matched as well.
{1,5} Quantifier, ensures that it is matched minimum 1 and maximum 5 characters
Regex demo
You've done pretty good. You need to add hyphen and dot to that first character class. Note: With the hyphen, since it delegates ranges within a character class, you need to position it where contextually it cannot be specifying a range--not to say put it where it seems like it would be an invalid range, e.g., 7-., but positionally cannot be a range, i.e., first or last. So your first character class would look something like this:
[a-zA-Z 0-9.-]{1,5} or [-a-zA-Z0-9 .]{1,5}
So, we've just defined what one segment looks like. That pattern can reoccur zero or more times. Of course, there are many ways to do that, but I would favor a regex subroutine because this allows code reuse. Now if the specs change or you're testing and realize you have to tweak that segment pattern, you only need to change it in one place.
Subroutines are not supported in BRE or ERE, but most widely-used modern regex engines support them (Perl, PCRE, Ruby, Delphi, R, PHP). They are very simple to use and understand. Basically, you just need to be able to refer to it (sound familiar? refer-back? back-reference?), so this means we need to capture the regex we wish to repeat. Then it's as simple as referring back to it, but instead of \1 which refers to the captured value (data), we want to refer to it as (?1), the capturing expression. In doing so, we've logically defined a subroutine:
([a-zA-Z 0-9.-]{1,5})(,(?1))*
So, the first group basically defines our subroutine and the second group consists of a comma followed by the same segment-definition expression we used for the first group, and that is optional ('*' is the zero-or-more quantifier).
If you operate on large quantities of data where efficiency is a consideration, don't capture when you don't have to. If your sole purpose for using parenthesis is to alternate (e.g., \b[bB](asset|eagle)\b hound) or to quantify, as in our second group, use the (?: ... ) notation, which signifies to the regex engine that this is a non-capturing group. Without going into great detail, there is a lot of overhead in maintaining the match locations--not that it's complex, per se, just potentially highly repetitive. Regex engines will match, store the information, then when the match fails, they "give up" the match and try again starting with the next matching substring. Each time they match your capture group, they're storing that information again. Okay, I'm off the soapbox now. :-)
So, we're almost there. I say "almost" because I don't have all the information. But if this should be the sole occupant of the "subject" (line, field, etc.--the data sample you're evaluating), you should anchor it to "assert" that requirement. The caret '^' is beginning of subject, and the dollar '$' is end of subject, so by encapsulating our expression in ^ ... $ we are asserting that the subject matches in it's entirety, front-to-back. These assertions have zero-length; they consume no data, only assert a relative position. You can operate on them, e.g., s/^/ / would indent your entire document two spaces. You haven't really substituted the beginning of line with two spaces, but you're able to operate on that imaginary, zero-length location. (Do some research on zero-length assertions [aka zero-width assertions, or look-arounds] to uncover a powerful feature of modern regex. For example, in the previous regex if I wanted to make sure I did not insert two spaces on blank lines: s/^(?!$)/ /)
Also, you didn't say if you need to capture the results to do something with it. My impression was it's validation only, so that's not necessary. However, if it is needed, you can wrap the entire expression in capturing parenthesis: ^( ... )$.
I'm going to provide a final solution that does not assume you need to capture but does assume the entire subject should consist of this value:
^([a-zA-Z 0-9. -]{1,5})(?:,(?1))*$
I know I went on a bit, but you said you were new to regex, so wanted to provide some detail. I hope it wasn't too much detail.
By the way, an excellent resource with tutorials is regular-expressions dot info, and a wonderful regex development and testing tool is regex101 dot com. And I can never say enough about stack overflow!
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.)
I have a file containing many lines of text, and I want to match only those lines that contain a number of words. All words must be present in the line, but they can come in any order.
So if we want to match one, two, three, the first 2 lines below would be matched:
three one four two <-- match
four two one three <-- match
one two four five
three three three
Can this be done using QRegExp (without splitting the text and testing each line separately for each word)?
Yes it is possible. Use a lookahead. That will check the following parts of the subject string, without actually consuming them. That means after the lookahead is finished the regex engine will jump back to where it started and you can run another lookahead (of course in this case, you use it from the beginning of the string). Try this:
^(?=[^\r\n]*one)(?=[^\r\n]*two)(?=[^\r\n]*three)[^\r\n]*$
The negated character classes [^\r\n] make sure that we can never look past the end of the line. Because the lookaheads don't actually consume anything for the match, we add the [^\r\n]* at the end (after the lookaheads) and $ for the end of the line. In fact, you could leave out the $, due to greediness of *, but I think it makes the meaning of the expression a bit more apparent.
Make sure to use this regex with multi-line mode (so that ^ and $ match the beginning of a line).
EDIT:
Sorry, QRegExp apparently does not support multi-line mode m:
QRegExp does not have an equivalent to Perl's /m option, but this can be emulated in various ways for example by splitting the input into lines or by looping with a regexp that searches for newlines.
It even recommends splitting the string into lines, which is what you want to avoid.
Since QRegExp also does not support lookbehinds (which would help emulating m), other solutions are a bit more tricky. You could go with
(?:^|\r|\n)(?=[^\r\n]*one)(?=[^\r\n]*two)(?=[^\r\n]*three)([^\r\n]*)
Then the line you want should be in capturing group 1. But I think splitting the string into lines might make for more readable code than this.
You can use the MultilineOption PatternOption from the new Qt5 QRegularExpression like:
QRegularExpression("\\w+", QRegularExpression::MultilineOption)
I want to match two consecutive lines, with the first line having no lower-case letter and the second having lower-case letter(s), e.g.
("3.2 A MEMORY ABSTRACTION: ADDRESS SPACES 177" "#205")
("3.3.1 Paging 187" "#215")
Why would the Regex ^(?!.*[:lower:]).*$\n^(.*[:lower:]).*$ match each of the following two-line examples?
("1.3.3 Disks 24" "#52")
("1.3.4 Tapes 25" "#53")
("1.5.4 Input/Output 41" "#69")
("1.5.5 Protection 42" "#70")
("3.1 NO MEMORY ABSTRACTION 174" "#202")
("3.2 A MEMORY ABSTRACTION: ADDRESS SPACES 177" "#205")
("3.3.1 Paging 187" "#215")
("3.3.2 Page Tables 191" "#219")
Thanks and regards!
ADDED:
For a example such as:
("3.1 NO MEMORY ABSTRACTION 174" "#202")
("3.2 A MEMORY ABSTRACTION: ADDRESS SPACES 177" "#205")
("3.3.1 Paging 187" "#215")
("3.3.2 Page Tables 191" "#219")
How shall I match only the middle two lines not the first three lines or all the four lines?
To use a POSIX "character class" like [:lower:], you have to enclose it in another set of square brackets, like this: [[:lower:]]. (According to POSIX, the outer set of brackets form a bracket expression and [:lower:] is a character class, but to everyone else the outer brackets define a character class and the inner [:lower:] is obsolete.)
Another problem with your regex is that the first part is not required to consume any characters; everything is optional. That means your match can start on the blank line, and I don't think you want that. Changing the second .* to .+ fixes that, but it's just a quick patch.
This regex seems to match your specification:
^(?!.*[[:lower:]]).+\n(?=.*[[:lower:]]).*$
But I'm a little puzzled, because there's nothing in your sample data that matches. Is there supposed to be?
Using Rubular, we can see what's matched by your initial expression, and then, by adding a few excess capturing groups, see why it matches.
Essentially, the negative look-ahead followed by .* will match anything. If you merely want to check that the first line has no lower-case letters, check that explicitly, e.g.
^(?:[^a-z]+)$
Finally, I'd assuming you want the entire second line, you can do this for the second part:
^(.*?(?=[:lower:]).*?)$
Or to match your inital version:
^(.*?(?=[:lower:])).*?$
The reluctant qualifiers (*?) seemed to be necessary to avoid matching across lines.
The final version I ended up with, thus, is:
^(?:[^a-z]+)$\n^(.*?(?=[:lower:]).*?)$
This can be seen in action with your test data here. It only captures the line ("3.2 A MEMORY ABSTRACTION: ADDRESS SPACES 177" "#205").
Obviously, the regex I've used might be quite specific to Ruby, so testing with your regex engine may be somewhat different. There are many easily Google-able online regex tests, I just picked on Rubular since it does a wonderful job of highlighting what is being matched.
Incidentally, if you're using Python, the Python Regex Tool is very helpful for online testing of Python regexes (and it works with the final version I gave above), though I find the output visually less helpful in trouble-shooting.
After thinking about it a little more, Alan Moore's point about [[:lower:]] is spot on, as is his point about how the data would match. Looking back at what I wrote, I got a little too involved in breaking-down the regex and missed something about the problem as described. If you modify the regex I gave above to:
^(?:[^[:lower:]]+)$\n^(.*?(?=[[:lower:]]).*?)$
It matches only the line ("3.3.1 Paging 187" "#215"), which is the only line with lowercase letters following a line with no lowercase letters, as can be seen here. Placing a capturing group in Alan's expression, yielding ^(?!.*[[:lower:]]).+\n((?=.*[[:lower:]]).*)$ likewise captures the same text, though what, exactly, is matched is different.
I still don't have a good solution for matching multiple lines.