I need some help building a regular expression for a string which may contain 1, 2, 3, or 4 fields. Each field has a format of: tag=value.
Below is a comprehensive list of all possible strings I can have. code tag is a three-digits number:
type=buy&code=123&time=yes&save=yes
type=buy&code=123&time=yes&save=no
type=buy&code=123&time=no&save=yes
type=buy&code=123&time=no&save=no
type=buy&code=123&time=yes
type=buy&code=123&time=no
type=sell&code=123&time=yes&save=yes
type=sell&code=123&time=yes&save=no
type=sell&code=123&time=no&save=yes
type=sell&code=123&time=no&save=no
type=sell&code=123&time=yes
type=sell&code=123&time=no
type=long&code=123
type=short&code=123
type=fill&code=123
type=confirm&code=123
type=cancelall
type=resendall
So these are the possible values for the four tags:
type={buy|sell|long|short|fill|confirm|cancelall|resendall}
code=[[:digit:]]{3}
time={yes|no}
save={yes|no}
This is what I have right now:
value={buy|sell|long|short|fill|confirm|cancelall|resendall}&code=[[:digit:]]{3}&time={yes|no}&save={yes|no}
It is obviously not correct, I do not know how make number of fields to be variable.
I want to use regular expression to check if the string is in correct format from C++ code. I am already doing it by parsing the string and using multiple "if" statements which makes tens of lines of code and it is also error prone.
Thank you!
This regex will do it:
/^type=(?:(?:buy|sell)&code=\d{3}&time=(?:yes|no)(?:&save=(?:yes|no))?|(?:long|short|fill|confirm)&code=\d{3}|cancelall|resendall)$/
(using two anchors, an optional item and lots of alternations in non-capturing groups)
I am already doing it by parsing the string and using multiple "if" statements
For checking rules, this might be the better alternative. You still might use regexes for tokenizing your string.
You also might want to have a look at a parser generator, since you already seem to have a grammar available. The generator will yield parser code from that, which can be called to check the validity of your inputs and will return helpful error messages.
Related
I am working with a messy manually maintained "database" that has a column containing a string with name,value pairs. I am trying to parse the entire column with regexp to pull out the values. The column is huge (>100,000 entries). As a proxy for my actual data, let's use this code:
line1={'''thing1'': ''-583'', ''thing2'': ''245'', ''thing3'': ''246'', ''morestuff'':, '''''};
line2={'''thing1'': ''617'', ''thing2'': ''239'', ''morestuff'':, '''''};
line3={'''thing1'': ''unexpected_string(with)parens5'', ''thing2'': 245, ''thing3'':''246'', ''morestuff'':, '''''};
mycell=vertcat(line1,line2,line3);
This captures the general issues encountered in the database. I want to extract what thing1, thing2, and thing3 are in each line using cellfun to output a scalar cell array. They should normally be 3 digit numbers, but sometimes they have an unexpected form. Sometimes thing3 is completely missing, without the name even showing up in the line. Sometimes there are minor formatting inconsistencies, like single quotes missing around the value, spaces missing, or dashes showing up in front of the three digit value. I have managed to handle all of these, except for the case where thing3 is completely missing.
My general approach has been to use expressions like this:
expr1='(?<=thing1''):\s?''?-?([\w\d().]*?)''?,';
expr2='(?<=thing2''):\s?''?-?([\w\d().]*?)''?,';
expr3='(?<=thing3''):\s?''?-?([\w\d().]*?)''?,';
This looks behind for thingX' and then tries to match : followed by zero or one spaces, followed by 0 or 1 single quote, followed by zero or one dash, followed by any combination of letters, numbers, parentheses, or periods (this is defined as the token), using a lazy match, until zero or one single quote is encountered, followed by a comma. I call regexp as regexp(___,'tokens','once') to return the matching token.
The problem is that when there is no match, regexp returns an empty array. This prevents me from using, say,
out=cellfun(#(x) regexp(x,expr3,'tokens','once'),mycell);
unless I call it with 'UniformOutput',false. The problem with that is twofold. First, I need to then manually find the rows where there was no match. For example, I can do this:
emptyout=cellfun(#(x) isempty(x),out);
emptyID=find(emptyout);
backfill=cell(length(emptyID),1);
[backfill{:}]=deal('Unknown');
out(emptyID)=backfill;
In this example, emptyID has a length of 1 so this code is overkill. But I believe this is the correct way to generalize for when it is longer. This code will change every empty cell array in out with the string Unknown. But this leads to the second problem. I've now got a 'messy' cell array of non-scalar values. I cannot, for example, check unique(out) as a result.
Pardon the long-windedness but I wanted to give a clear example of the problem. Now my actual question is in a few parts:
Is there a way to accomplish what I'm trying to do without using 'UniformOutput',false? For example, is there a way to have regexp pass a custom string if there is no match (e.g. pass 'Unknown' if there is no match)? I can think of one 'cheat', which would be to use the | operator in the expression, and if the first token is not matched, look for something that is ALWAYS found. I would then still need to double back through the output and change every instance of that result to 'Unknown'.
If I take the 'UniformOutput',false approach, how can I recover a scalar cell array at the end to easily manipulate it (e.g. pass it through unique)? I will admit I'm not 100% clear on scalar vs nonscalar cell arrays.
If there is some overall different approach that I'm not thinking of, I'm also open to it.
Tangential to the main question, I also tried using a single expression to run regexp using 3 tokens to pull out the values of thing1, thing2, and thing3 in one pass. This seems to require 'UniformOutput',false even when there are no empty results from regexp. I'm not sure how to get a scalar cell array using this approach (e.g. an Nx1 cell array where each cell is a 3x1 cell).
At the end of the day, I want to build a table using these results:
mytable=table(out1,out2,out3);
Edit: Using celldisp sheds some light on the problem:
celldisp(out)
out{1}{1} =
246
out{2} =
Unknown
out{3}{1} =
246
I assume that I need to change the structure of out so that the contents of out{1}{1} and out{3}{1} are instead just out{1} and out{3}. But I'm not sure how to accomplish this if I need 'UniformOutput',false.
Note: I've not used MATLAB and this doesn't answer the "efficient" aspect, but...
How about forcing there to always be a match?
Just thinking about you really wanting a match to skip this problem, how about an empty match?
Looking on the MATLAB help page here I can see a 'emptymatch' option, perhaps this is something to try.
E.g.
the_thing_i_want_to_find|
Match "the_thing_i_want_to_find" or an empty match, note the | character.
In capture group it might look like this:
(the_thing_i_want_to_find|)
As a workaround, I have found that using regexprep can be used to find entries where thing3 is missing. For example:
replace='$1 ''thing3'': ''Unknown'', ''morestuff''';
missingexpr='(?<=thing2'':\s?)(''?-?[\w\d().]*?''?,) ''morestuff''';
regexprep(mycell{2},missingexpr,replace)
ans =
''thing1': '617', 'thing2': '239', 'thing3': 'Unknown', 'morestuff':, '''
Applying it to the entire array:
fixedcell=cellfun(#(x) regexprep(x,missingexpr,replace),mycell);
out=cellfun(#(x) regexp(x,expr3,'tokens','once'),fixedcell,'UniformOutput',false);
This feels a little roundabout, but it works.
cellfun can be replaced with a plain old for loop. Your code will either be equally fast, or maybe even faster. cellfun is implemented with a loop anyway, there is no advantage of using it other than fewer lines of code. In your explicit loop, you can then check the output of regexp, and build your output array any way you like.
I want to create a lexer/parser for a language that has non-delimited strings.
Which part of the language is a string is defined by the command preceding it.
For example it has statements that look like this:
pause 5
alert Hello world[CRLF] this contains 'pause' once (1)
Alert in this instance can end with any string, including keywords and numbers.
Further complicating things, the text can contain tags like [CRLF] that I want to separate too.
Ideally I'd want this to be broken up into:
[PAUSE][INT 5]
[ALERT][STR "Hello world"][CRLF][STR " this contains 'pause' once (1)"]
I'm currently using flex but from what I've gathered this kind of thing isn't possible with flex.
How can I achieve what I want here?
(Since one of your tags is "regex", I'll suggest a non-flex approach.)
From the example, it seems like you could just:
match each line against ^(\w+) (.+) to obtain command and arguments-text, and then
get individual arguments by splitting the arguments-text on (\[\w+\]) (assuming your regex library's split function can return both the splitter-strings and the split-strings).
It's possible your actual situation is more complex and something like flex makes more sense, but I'm not really seeing it so far.
Original problem:
I am reading something from regex format, expands it and writing it out. This list can become huge while writing it out.
While writing it out, I do not have the original regex data. So, I will have to create regexes out of the strings which I have.
A couple of cases while reading and writing:
Say, read regular expression is:
abc/*
Since 'abc' can have only 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D'(Have this list with me), Above would be translated to list of strings as
"abc/A", "abc/B", "abc/C", "abc/D" -- 1
Say, another read regular expression is:
def/*/A
Since 'def' can have only 'x', 'y', 'x'(Have this list with me), Above would be translated to list of strings as
"def/x/A", "def/x/A", "def/x/A" -- 2
I have already said that I do not have original regular expressions now. All I have is list of strings. I will have to create regexes out of statements number 1 and 2.
From number 1, I should get
abc/*
From number 2, I should get
def/*/A
which are the original.
Question: Which data structure would be efficient to solve this problem. I have thought of using tries & Aho–Corasick algorithm but could not get a clear solution at top of my head till now.
I would be happy to expand the question more in case it is not clear. Please consider that * will not match /, //, or anything except characters.
This is a hard problem to solve.
Good possible solution:
Step 1: Convert list of strings into a finite automation. As I mentioned, I shall use 'Aho–Corasick algorithm' to do that.
Step 2: Transform the finite automation into a regular expression... Something like this: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/2016/how-to-convert-finite-automata-to-regular-expressions
I have a string variable containing school names and I need to find all the possible combination of each word in this string variable in stata:
For example variation of a word "Academy" would be:
Academy,
Academy,
acdamey,
aacdemy,
dmcaamy,
aacedmy,
and so on.
I need this to standardize the raw data of school names, which has many typos of each word due to data entry issues, like the ones given above for "academy".
Depending whether your data is already in the Excel sheets or a file, you can either use regex trying to match all possible combinations (and probably fix them when found) or parse the strings first before bringing them into Excel. In either case you could make a file (or Excel list/table/area/etc.) that includes all the common typos and pick each typo as regex match to use when comparing to your actual input.
Making regexp that would actually find all possible cases is next to impossible, especially if there are cases where very similar (but correct) names for schools exist. In any case direct regexps would be very messy and complex, so I would advice you to parse the data by finding first the correct form, excluding it and then using (greedy) search/regex to find the typoed versions. You can then save the typos to use them as a filter/match/pattern.
To get some sort of starting ideas, check this links:
Regex: Search for verb roots
Read text file and extract string into Excel sheet using regex
P.s You should keep the count of all strings/school names and finally get a list of all names that did not match correct form or any of your regexp filters, so you can manually insert/correct them.
I am writing a program which will tokenize the input text depending upon some specific rules. I am using C++ for this.
Rules
Letter 'a' should be converted to token 'V-A'
Letter 'p' should be converted to token 'C-PA'
Letter 'pp' should be converted to token 'C-PPA'
Letter 'u' should be converted to token 'V-U'
This is just a sample and in real time I have around 500+ rules like this. If I am providing input as 'appu', it should tokenize like 'V-A + C-PPA + V-U'. I have implemented an algorithm for doing this and wanted to make sure that I am doing the right thing.
Algorithm
All rules will be kept in a XML file with the corresponding mapping to the token. Something like
<rules>
<rule pattern="a" token="V-A" />
<rule pattern="p" token="C-PA" />
<rule pattern="pp" token="C-PPA" />
<rule pattern="u" token="V-U" />
</rules>
1 - When the application starts, read this xml file and keep the values in a 'std::map'. This will be available until the end of the application(singleton pattern implementation).
2 - Iterate the input text characters. For each character, look for a match. If found, become more greedy and look for more matches by taking the next characters from the input text. Do this until we are getting a no match. So for the input text 'appu', first look for a match for 'a'. If found, try to get more match by taking the next character from the input text. So it will try to match 'ap' and found no matches. So it just returns.
3 - Replace the letter 'a' from input text as we got a token for it.
4 - Repeat step 2 and 3 with the remaining characters in the input text.
Here is a more simple explanation of the steps
input-text = 'appu'
tokens-generated=''
// First iteration
character-to-match = 'a'
pattern-found = true
// since pattern found, going recursive and check for more matches
character-to-match = 'ap'
pattern-found = false
tokens-generated = 'V-A'
// since no match found for 'ap', taking the first success and replacing it from input text
input-text = 'ppu'
// second iteration
character-to-match = 'p'
pattern-found = true
// since pattern found, going recursive and check for more matches
character-to-match = 'pp'
pattern-found = true
// since pattern found, going recursive and check for more matches
character-to-match = 'ppu'
pattern-found = false
tokens-generated = 'V-A + C-PPA'
// since no match found for 'ppu', taking the first success and replacing it from input text
input-text = 'u'
// third iteration
character-to-match = 'u'
pattern-found = true
tokens-generated = 'V-A + C-PPA + V-U' // we'r done!
Questions
1 - Is this algorithm looks fine for this problem or is there a better way to address this problem?
2 - If this is the right method, std::map is a good choice here? Or do I need to create my own key/value container?
3 - Is there a library available which can tokenize string like the above?
Any help would be appreciated
:)
So you're going through all of the tokens in your map looking for matches? You might as well use a list or array, there; it's going to be an inefficient search regardless.
A much more efficient way of finding just the tokens suitable for starting or continuing a match would be to store them as a trie. A lookup of a letter there would give you a sub-trie which contains only the tokens which have that letter as the first letter, and then you just continue searching downward as far as you can go.
Edit: let me explain this a little further.
First, I should explain that I'm not familiar with these the C++ std::map, beyond the name, which makes this a perfect example of why one learns the theory of this stuff as well as than details of particular libraries in particular programming languages: unless that library is badly misusing the name "map" (which is rather unlikely), the name itself tells me a lot about the characteristics of the data structure. I know, for example, that there's going to be a function that, given a single key and the map, will very efficiently search for and return the value associated with that key, and that there's also likely a function that will give you a list/array/whatever of all of the keys, which you could search yourself using your own code.
My interpretation of your data structure is that you have a map where the keys are what you call a pattern, those being a list (or array, or something of that nature) of characters, and the values are tokens. Thus, you can, given a full pattern, quickly find the token associated with it.
Unfortunately, while such a map is a good match to converting your XML input format to a internal data structure, it's not a good match to the searches you need to do. Note that you're not looking up entire patterns, but the first character of a pattern, producing a set of possible tokens, followed by a lookup of the second character of a pattern from within the set of patterns produced by that first lookup, and so on.
So what you really need is not a single map, but maps of maps of maps, each keyed by a single character. A lookup of "p" on the top level should give you a new map, with two keys: p, producing the C-PPA token, and "anything else", producing the C-PA token. This is effectively a trie data structure.
Does this make sense?
It may help if you start out by writing the parsing code first, in this manner: imagine someone else will write the functions to do the lookups you need, and he's a really good programmer and can do pretty much any magic that you want. Writing the parsing code, concentrate on making that as simple and clean as possible, creating whatever interface using these arbitrary functions you need (while not getting trivial and replacing the whole thing with one function!). Now you can look at the lookup functions you ended up with, and that tells you how you need to access your data structure, which will lead you to the type of data structure you need. Once you've figured that out, you can then work out how to load it up.
This method will work - I'm not sure that it is efficient, but it should work.
I would use the standard std::map rather than your own system.
There are tools like lex (or flex) that can be used for this. The issue would be whether you can regenerate the lexical analyzer that it would construct when the XML specification changes. If the XML specification does not change often, you may be able to use tools such as lex to do the scanning and mapping more easily. If the XML specification can change at the whim of those using the program, then lex is probably less appropriate.
There are some caveats - notably that both lex and flex generate C code, rather than C++.
I would also consider looking at pattern matching technology - the sort of stuff that egrep in particular uses. This has the merit of being something that can be handled at runtime (because egrep does it all the time). Or you could go for a scripting language - Perl, Python, ... Or you could consider something like PCRE (Perl Compatible Regular Expressions) library.
Better yet, if you're going to use the boost library, there's always the Boost tokenizer library -> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_39_0/libs/tokenizer/index.html
You could use a regex (perhaps the boost::regex library). If all of the patterns are just strings of letters, a regex like "(a|p|pp|u)" would find a greedy match. So:
Run a regex_search using the above pattern to locate the next match
Plug the match-text into your std::map to get the replace-text.
Print the non-matched consumed input and replace-text to your output, then repeat 1 on the remaining input.
And done.
It may seem a bit complicated, but the most efficient way to do that is to use a graph to represent a state-chart. At first, i thought boost.statechart would help, but i figured it wasn't really appropriate. This method can be more efficient that using a simple std::map IF there are many rules, the number of possible characters is limited and the length of the text to read is quite high.
So anyway, using a simple graph :
0) create graph with "start" vertex
1) read xml configuration file and create vertices when needed (transition from one "set of characters" (eg "pp") to an additional one (eg "ppa")). Inside each vertex, store a transition table to the next vertices. If "key text" is complete, mark vertex as final and store the resulting text
2) now read text and interpret it using the graph. Start at the "start" vertex. ( * ) Use table to interpret one character and to jump to new vertex. If no new vertex has been selected, an error can be issued. Otherwise, if new vertex is final, print the resulting text and jump back to start vertex. Go back to (*) until there is no more text to interpret.
You could use boost.graph to represent the graph, but i think it is overly complex for what you need. Make your own custom representation.