So I'm working on some cleanup in haxeflixel, and I need to validate a csv map, so I'm using a regex to check if its ok (don't mention the ending commas, I know thats not valid csv but I want to allow it), and I think I have a decent regex for doing that, and it seems to work well on flash, but c++ crashes, and neko gives me this error: An error occured while running pcre_exec....
here is my regex, I'm sorry its long, but I have no idea where the problem is...
^(([ ]*-?[0-9]+[ ]*,?)+\r?\n?)+$
if anyone knows what might be going on I'd appreciate it,
Thanks,
Nico
ps. there are probably errors in my regex for checking csv, but I can figure those out, its kind of enjoyable, I'd rather just know what specifically could be causing this:)
edit: ah, I've just noticed this doesn't happen on all strings, once I narrow it down to what strings, I will post one... as for what I'm checking for, its basically just to make sure theres no weird xml header, or any non integer value in the map file, basically it should validate this:
1,1,1,1
1,1,1,1
1,1,1,1
or this:
1,1,1,1,
1,1,1,1,
1,1,1,1,
but not:
xml blahh blahh>
1,m,1,1
1,1,b,1
1,1,1,1
xml>
(and yes I know thats not valid xml;))
edit: it gets stranger:
so I'm trying to determine what strings crash it, and while this still wouldnt explain a normal map crashing, its definatly weird, and has the same result:
what happens is:
this will fail a .match() test, but not crash:
a
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
while this will crash the program:
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,*a*,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
To be honest, you wrote one of the worst regexps I ever seen. It actually looks like it was written specifically to be as slow as possible. I write it not to offend you, but to express how much you need to learn to write regexps(hint: writing your own regexp engine is a good exercise).
Going to your problem, I guess it just runs out of memory(it is extremely memory intensive). I am not sure why it happens only on pcre targets(both neko and cpp targets use pcre), but I guess it is about memory limits per regexp run in pcre or some heuristics in other targets to correct such miswritten regexps.
I'd suggest something along the lines of
~/^(( *-?[0-9]+ *,)* *-?[0-9]+ *,?\r?\n)*(( *-?[0-9]+ *,)* *-?[0-9]+ *,?\r?\n?)$/
There, "~/" and last "/" are haxe regexp markers.
I wasnt extensively testing it, just a run on your samples, but it should do the job(probably with a bit of tweaking).
Also, just as a hint, I'd suggest you to split file into lines first before running any regexps, it will lower memmory usage(or you will need to hold only a part of your text in memory) and simplify your regexp.
I'd also note that since you will need to parse csv anyhow(for any properly formed input, which are prevailing in your data I guess), it might be much faster to do all the tests while actually parsing.
Edit: the answer to question "why it eats so much memory"
Well, it is not a short topic, and that's why I proposed to you to write your own regexp engine. There are some differences in implementations, but generally imagine regexp engine works like that:
parses your regular expression and builds a graph of all possible states(state is basically a symbol value and a number of links to other symbols which can follow it).
sets up a list of read pointer and state pointer pairs, current state list, consisting of regexp initial state and a pointer to matched string first letter
sets up read pointer to the first symbol of symbol string
sets up state poiter to initial state of regexp
takes up one pair from current state list and stores it as current state and current read pointer
reads symbol under current read pointer
matches it with symbols in states which current state have links to, and makes a list of states that matched.
if there is a final regexp state in this list, goes to 12
for each item in this list adds a pair of next read pointer(which is current+1) and item to the current state list
if the current state list is empty, returns false, as string didn't match the regexp
goes to 6
here it is, in a final state of matched regexp, returns true, string matches regexp.
Of course, there are some differences between regexp engines, and some of them eliminate some problems afaik. And of course they also have pseudosymbols, groupings, they need to store the positions regexp and groups matched, they have lookahead and lookbehind and also grouping references which makes it a bit(quite a humble measure) more complex and forces to use a bit more complex data structures, but the main idea is the same. So, here we are and your problem is clearly seen from algorithm. The less specific you are about what you want to match and the more there chances for engine to match the same substring as different paths in state graph, the more memory and processor time it will consume, exponentionally.
Try to model how regexp engine matches regexp (a+a+)+b on strings aaaaaab, ab, aa, aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (Don't try the last one, it would take hours or days to compute on a modern PC.)
Also, it worth to note that some regexp engines do things in a bit different way so they can handle this situations properly, but there always are ways to make regexp extremely slow.
And another thing to note is that I may hav ebeen wrong about the exact memory problem. This case it may be processor too, and before that it may be engine limits on memory/processor kicking in, not exactly system starving of memory.
I am attempting to write a MVC model validation that verifies that there is 10 or more words in a string. The string is being populated correctly, so I did not include the HTML. I have done a fair bit of research, and it seems that something along the lines of what I have tries should work, but, for whatever reason, mine always seem to fail. Any ideas as to what I am doing wrong here?
(using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations, in a mvc 4 vb.net environment)
Have tried ([\w]+){10,}, ((\\S+)\s?){10,}, [\b]{20,}, [\w+\w?]{10,}, (\b(\w+?)\b){10,}, ([\w]+?\s){10}, ([\w]+?\s){9}[\w], ([\S]+\s){9}[\S], ([a-zA-Z0-9,.'":;$-]+\s+){10,} and several more varaiations on the same basic idea.
<Required(ErrorMessage:="The Description of Operations field is required"), RegularExpression("([\w]+){20,}", ErrorMessage:="ERROZ")>
Public Property DescOfOperations As String = String.Empty
Correct Solution was ([\S]+\s+){9}[\S\s]+
EDIT Moved accepted version to the top, removing unused versions. Unless I am wrong and the whole sequence needs to match, then something like (also accounting for double spaces):
([\S]+\s+){9}[\S\s]+
Or:
([\w]+?\s+){9}[\w]+
Give this a try:
([a-zA-Z0-9,.'":;$-]+\s){10,}
Background
I use JScript (Microsoft's ECMAScript implementation) for a lot of Windows system administration needs. This means I use a lot of ActiveX (Automated COM) objects. The methods of these objects often expect Number or Boolean arguments. For example:
var fso = new ActiveXObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject");
var a = fso.CreateTextFile("c:\\testfile.txt", true);
a.WriteLine("This is a test.");
a.Close();
(CreateTextFile Method on MSDN)
On the second line you see that the second argument is one that I'm talking about. A Boolean of "true" doesn't really describe how the method's behavior will change. This isn't a problem for me, but my automation-shy coworkers are easily spooked. Not knowing what an argument does spooks them. Unfortunately a long list of constants (not real constants, of course, since current JScript versions don't support them) will also spook them. So I've taken to documenting some of these basic function calls with inline block comments. The second line in the above example would be written as such:
var a = fso.CreateTextFile("c:\\testfile.txt", /*overwrite*/ true, /*unicode*/ false);
That ends up with a small syntax highlighting dilemma for me, though. I like my comments highlighted vibrantly; both block and line comments. These tiny inline block comments mean little to me, personally, however. I'd like to highlight those particular comments in a more muted fashion (light gray on white, for example). Which brings me to my dilemma.
Dilemma
I'd like to override the default syntax highlighting for block comments when both the beginning and end marks are on the same line. Ideally this is done solely in my vimrc file, and not in a superseding personal copy of the javascript.vim syntax. My initial attempt is pathetic:
hi inlineComment guifg=#bbbbbb
match inlineComment "\/\*.*\*\/"
Straight away you can see the first problem with this regular expression pattern is that it's a greedy search. It's going to match from the first "/*" to the last "*/" on the line, meaning everything between two inline block comments will get this highlight style as well. I can fix that, but I'm really not sure how to deal with my second concern.
Comments can't be defined inside of String literals in ECMAScript. So this syntax highlighting will override String highlighting as well. I've never had a problem with this in system administration scripts, but it does often bite me when I'm examining the source of many javascript libraries intended for browsers (less.js for example).
What regex pattern, syntax definition, or other solution would the amazing StackOverflow community recommend to restore my vimrc zen?
I'm not sure, but from your description it sounds like you don't need a new syntax definition. Vim syntax files usually let you override a particular syntax item with your own choice of highlighting. In this case, the item you want is called javaScriptComment, so a command like this will set its highlighting:-
hi javaScriptComment guifg=#bbbbbb
but you have to do this in your .vimrc file (or somewhere that's sourced from there), so it's evaluated before the syntax file. The syntax file uses the highlight default command, so the syntax file's choice of highlighting only affects syntax items with no highlighting set. See :help :hi-default for more details on that. BTW, it only works on Vim 5.8 and later.
The above command will change all inline /* */ comments, and leave // line comments with their default setting, because line comments are a different syntax item (javaScriptLineComment). You can find the names of all these groups by looking at the javascript.vim file. (The easiest way to do this is :e $VIMRUNTIME/syntax/javascript.vim .)
If you only want to change some inline comments, it's a little more complicated, but still easy to see what to do by looking at javascript.vim . If you do that, you can see that block comments are defined like this:-
syn region javaScriptComment start="/\*" end="\*/" contains=#Spell,javaScriptCommentTodo
See that you can use separate regexes for begin and end markers: you don't need to worry about matching the stuff in between with non-greedy quantifiers, or anything like that. To have a syntax item that works similarly but only on one line, try adding the oneline option (:h :syn-oneline for more details):-
syn region myOnelineComment start="/\*" end="\*/" oneline
I've removed the two contains groups because (1) if you're only using it for parameter names, you probably don't want spell-checking turned on inside these comments, and (2) contained sections that aren't oneline override the oneline in the container region, so you would still match all TODO comments with this region.
You can define this new kind of comment region in your .vimrc, and set the highlighting how you like: it looks like you already know how to do that, so I won't go into more details on that. I haven't tried out this particular example, so you may still need a bit of fiddling to make it work. Give it a try and let me know how it goes.
Why don't you simply add a comment line above the call?
I think that
// fso.CreateTextFile(filename:String, overwrite:Boolean, unicode:Boolean)
var a = fso.CreateTextFile("c:\\testfile.txt", true, false);
is a lot more readable and informative than
var a = fso.CreateTextFile("c:\\testfile.txt", /*overwrite*/ true, /*unicode*/ false);
There's a completion type that isn't listed in the vim help files (notably: insert.txt), but which I instinctively feel the need for rather often. Let's say I have the words "Awesome" and "SuperCrazyAwesome" in my file. I find an instance of Awesome that should really be SuperCrazyAwesome, so I hop to the beginning of the word, enter insert mode, and then must type "SuperCrazy".
I feel I should be able to type "S", creating "SCrazy", and then simply hit a completion hotkey or two to have it find what's to the left of the cursor ("S"), what's to the right ("Crazy"), regex this against all words in the file ("/S\w*Crazy/"), and provide me with a completion popup menu of choices, or just do the replace if there's only one match.
I'd like to use the actual completion system for this. There exists a "user defined" completion which uses a function, and has a good example in the helps for replacing from a given list. However, I can't seem to track down many particulars that I'd need to make this happen, including:
How do I get a list of all words in the file from a vim function?
Can I list words from all buffers (with filenames), as vim's complete does?
How do I, in insert mode, get the text in the word before/after the cursor?
Can completion replace the entire word, and not just up to the cursor?
I've been at this for a couple of hours now. I keep hitting dead ends, like this one, which introduced me to \%# for matching with the cursor position, which doesn't seem to work for me. For instance, a search for \w*\%# returns only the first character of the word I'm on, regardless of where I'm in it. The \%# doesn't seem to anchor.
Although its not exactly following your desired method in the past I've written https://github.com/mjbrownie/swapit which might perform your task if you are looking for related keywords. It would fall down in this scenario if you have hundreds of matches.
It's mainly useful for 2-10 possible sequenced matches.
You would define a list
:SwapList awesomes Awesome MoreAwesome SuperCrazyAwesome FullyCompletelyAwesome UnbelievablyAwesome
and move through the matches with the incrementor decrementor keys (c+a) (c+x)
There are also a few other cycling type plugins like swap words that I know of on vim.org and github.
The advantage here is you don't have to group words together with regex.
I wrote something like that years ago when working with 3rd party libraries with rather long CamelCasePrefixes in every function different for each component. But it was in Before Git Hub era and I considered it a lost jewel, but search engine says I am not a complete ass and posted it to Vim wiki.
Here it is: http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Custom_keyword_completion
Just do not ask me what 'MKw' means. No idea.
This will need some adaptation to your needs, as it is looking up only the word up to the cursor, but the idea is there. It works for current buffer only. Iterating through all buffers would be sluggish as it is not creating any index. For those purposes I would go with external grep.