I'm attempting to extract a series of data values from a text file.
The values are in the format: <MODIFIER NAME1 VALUE; MODIFIER NAME2 VALUE;>
For the purposes of the current task that I have, I only care about extracting the VALUE that is situated next to each semicolon. What would the REGEX command look like that would isolate each of these VALUES (preferably so that I backreference all values in the replacement part of my processing.) I believe that ^(.*?); is somehow used, but I'm not seeing how to isolate only the word that is attached to the semicolon in a group for backreference use.
The exact syntax depends on the language, but the following regex should do it
"(\w+);"
I used the c# syntax. In other languages, the syntax might change a bit, but the actual regex remains the same.
where \w means any letter(it also includes 0-9 and '_), and the parenthesis signify that you capture the group inside.
if you want only letters, you can change the \w to [a-zA-Z] (again, different languages may or may not have different syntax for this)
I use This reference to reference my c# regex syntax. If you're using another language, that will also have something similar somewhere.
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!
I know this is a elementary RegEx possibility, but I can't seem to determine the right expression to use.
What I am looking to do is find & replace "foo" and only "foo" within a set of different situations like; abc_foo, abc_foo[something], abc-foo-something, and all different combinations except when it becomes another word like "foobar". The basic 'whole word' search function was close but doesn't help when variables and underscores are factored in.
It's actually not that elementary to match a string which does not contain word characters around itself:
If your language supports negative lookbehind, which is quite rare occasion, it would be simple:
(?<!\w)foo(?!\w)
However, there is a workaround to match the string with surrounding non-word characters (including _ which is a word character but you want to treat is as non-word) and use capturing groups to sort it all out:
(^|[\W_])foo([\W_]|$)
Debuggex Demo
e.g. in javascript syntax:
str.replace(/(^|[\W_])foo([\W_]|$)/g, "$1replacement$2");
You can use a negative lookahead assertion to do this. Using regex search, foo(?!bar) will match any instance of foo not followed by bar, and the following text is not part of the match, only foo is.
I have a source file with literally hundreds of occurrences of strings flecha.jpg and flecha1.jpg, but I need to find occurrences of any other .jpg image (i.e. casa.jpg, moto.jpg, whatever)
I have tried using a regular expression with negative lookbehind, like this:
(?<!flecha|flecha1).jpg
but it doesn't work! Notepad++ simply says that it is an invalid regular expression.
I have tried the regex elsewhere and it works, here is an example so I guess it is a problem with NPP's handling of regexes or with the syntax of lookbehinds/lookaheads.
So how could I achieve the same regex result in NPP?
If useful, I am using Notepad++ version 6.3 Unicode
As an extra, if you are so kind, what would be the syntax to achieve the same thing but with optional numbers (in this case only '1') as a suffix of my string? (even if it doesn't work in NPP, just to know)...
I tried (?<!flecha[1]?).jpg but it doesn't work. It should work the same as the other regex, see here (RegExr)
Notepad++ seems to not have implemented variable-length look-behinds (this happens with some tools). A workaround is to use more than one fixed-length look-behind:
(?<!flecha)(?<!flecha1)\.jpg
As you can check, the matches are the same. But this works with npp.
Notice I escaped the ., since you are trying to match extensions, what you want is the literal .. The way you had, it was a wildcard - could be any character.
About the extra question, unfortunately, as we can't have variable-length look-behinds, it is not possible to have optional suffixes (numbers) without having multiple look-behinds.
Solving the problem of the variable-length-negative-lookbehind limitation in Notepad++
Given here are several strategies for working around this limitation in Notepad++ (or any regex engine with the same limitation)
Defining the problem
Notepad++ does not support the use of variable-length negative lookbehind assertions, and it would be nice to have some workarounds. Let's consider the example in the original question, but assume we want to avoid occurrences of files named flecha with any number of digits after flecha, and with any characters before flecha. In that case, a regex utilizing a variable-length negative lookbehind would look like (?<!flecha[0-9]*)\.jpg.
Strings we don't want to match in this example
flecha.jpg
flecha1.jpg
flecha00501275696.jpg
aflecha.jpg
img_flecha9.jpg
abcflecha556677.jpg
The Strategies
Inserting Temporary Markers
Begin by performing a find-and-replace on the instances that you want to avoid working with - in our case, instances of flecha[0-9]*\.jpg. Insert a special marker to form a pattern that doesn't appear anywhere else. For this example, we will insert an extra . before .jpg, assuming that ..jpg doesn't appear elsewhere. So we do:
Find: (flecha[0-9]*)(\.jpg)
Replace with: $1.$2
Now you can search your document for all the other .jpg filenames with a simple regex like \w+\.jpg or (?<!\.)\.jpg and do what you want with them. When you're done, do a final find-and-replace operation where you replace all instances of ..jpg with .jpg, to remove the temporary marker.
Using a negative lookahead assertion
A negative lookahead assertion can be used to make sure that you're not matching the undesired file names:
(?<!\S)(?!\S*flecha\d*\.jpg)\S+\.jpg
Breaking it down:
(?<!\S) ensures that your match begins at the start of a file name, and not in the middle, by asserting that your match is not preceded by a non-whitespace character.
(?!\S*flecha\d*\.jpg) ensures that whatever is matched does not contain the pattern we want to avoid
\S+\.jpg is what actually gets matched -- a string of non-whitespace characters followed by .jpg.
Using multiple fixed-length negative lookbehinds
This is a quick (but not-so-elegant) solution for situations where the pattern you don't want to match has a small number of possible lengths.
For example, if we know that flecha is only followed by up to three digits, our regex could be:
(?<!flecha)(?<!flecha[0-9])(?<!flecha[0-9][0-9])(?<!flecha[0-9][0-9][0-9])\.jpg
Are you aware that you're only matching (in the sense of consuming) the extension (.jpg)? I would think you wanted to match the whole filename, no? And that's much easier to do with a lookahead:
\b(?!flecha1?\b)\w+\.jpg
The first \b anchors the match to the beginning of the name (assuming it's really a filename we're looking at). Then (?!flecha1?\b) asserts that the name is not flecha or flecha1. Once that's done, the \w+ goes ahead and consumes the name. Then \.jpg grabs the extension to finish off the match.
I want to match two consecutive lines, with the first line having no lower-case letter and the second having lower-case letter(s), e.g.
("3.2 A MEMORY ABSTRACTION: ADDRESS SPACES 177" "#205")
("3.3.1 Paging 187" "#215")
Why would the Regex ^(?!.*[:lower:]).*$\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.