I am using a regex to find:
test:?
Followed by any character until it hits the next:
test:?
Now when I run this regex I made:
((?:test:\?)(.*)(?!test:\?))
On this text:
test:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2test:?foo=bar&baz=footest:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2
I expected to get:
test:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2
test:?foo=bar&baz=foo
test:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2
But instead it matches everything. Does anyone with more regex experience know where I have gone wrong? I've used regexes for pattern matching before but this is my first experience of lookarounds/aheads.
Thanks in advance for any help/tips/pointers :-)
I guess you could explore a greedy version.
(expanded)
(test:\? (?: (?!test:\?)[\s\S])* )
The Perl program below
#! /usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
$_ = "test:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2test:?foo=bar&baz=footest:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2";
while (/(test:\? .*?) (?= test:\? | $)/gx) {
print "[$1]\n";
}
produces the desired output from your question, plus brackets for emphasis.
[test:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2]
[test:?foo=bar&baz=foo]
[test:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2]
Remember that regex quantifiers are greedy and want to gobble up as much as they can without breaking the match. Each subsegment to terminate as soon as possible, which means .*? semantics.
Each subsegment terminates with either another test:? or end-of-string, which we look for with (?=...) zero-width lookahead wrapped around | for alternatives.
The pattern in the code above uses Perl’s /x regex switch for readability. Depending on the language and libraries you’re using, you may need to remove the extra whitespace.
Three issues:
(?!) is a negative lookahead assertion. You want (?=) instead, requiring that what comes next is test:?.
The .* is greedy; you want it non-greedy so that you grab just the first chunk.
You're wanting the last chunk also, so you want to match $ as well at the end.
End result:
(?:test:\?)(.*?)(?=test:\?|$)
I've also removed the outer group, seeing no point in it. All RE engines that I know of let you access group 0 as the full match, or some other such way (though perhaps not when finding all matches). You can put it back if you need to.
(This works in PCRE; not sure if it would work with POSIX regular expressions, as I'm not in the habit of working with them.)
If you're just wanting to split on test:?, though, regular expressions are the wrong tool. Split the strings using your language's inbuilt support for such things.
Python:
>>> re.findall('(?:test:\?)(.*?)(?=test:\?|$)',
... 'test:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2test:?foo=bar&baz=footest:?foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2')
['foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2', 'foo=bar&baz=foo', 'foo2=bar2&baz2=foo2']
You probably want ((?:test:\?)(.*?)(?=test:\?)), although you haven't told us what language you're using to drive the regexes.
The .*? matches as few characters as possible without preventing the whole string from matching, where .* matches as many as possible (is greedy).
Depending, again, on what language you're using to do this, you'll probably need to match, then chop the string, then match again, or call some language-specific match_all type function.
By the way, you don't need to anchor a regex using a lookahead (you can just match the pattern to search for, instead), so this will (most likely) do in your case:
test:[?](.*?)test:[?]
Related
I keep bumping into situations where I need to capture a number of tokens from a string and after countless tries I couldn't find a way to simplify the process.
So let's say the text is:
start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end
This example has 8 items inside, but say it could have between 3 and 10 items.
I'd ideally like something like this:
start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end nice and clean BUT it only captures the last match. see here
I usually use something like this in simple situations:
start:(\w+)-(\w+)-(\w+)-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?:end
3 groups mandatory and another 7 optional because of the max 10 limit, but this doesn't look 'nice' and it would be a pain to write and track if the max limit was 100 and the matches were more complex. demo
And the best I could do so far:
start:(\w+)-((?1))-((?1))-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?:end
shorter especially if the matches are complex but still long. demo
Anyone managed to make it work as a 1 regex-only solution without programming?
I'm mostly interested on how can this be done in PCRE but other flavors would be ok too.
Update:
The purpose is to validate a match and capture individual tokens inside match 0 by RegEx alone, without any OS/Software/Programming-Language limitation
Update 2 (bounty):
With #nhahtdh's help I got to the RegExp below by using \G:
(?:start:(?=(?:[\w]+(?:-|(?=:end))){3,10}:end)|(?!^)\G-)([\w]+)
demo even shorter, but can be described without repeating code
I'm also interested in the ECMA flavor and as it doesn't support \G wondering if there's another way, especially without using /g modifier.
Read this first!
This post is to show the possibility rather than endorsing the "everything regex" approach to problem. The author has written 3-4 variations, each has subtle bug that are tricky to detect, before reaching the current solution.
For your specific example, there are other better solution that is more maintainable, such as matching and splitting the match along the delimiters.
This post deals with your specific example. I really doubt a full generalization is possible, but the idea behind is reusable for similar cases.
Summary
.NET supports capturing repeating pattern with CaptureCollection class.
For languages that supports \G and look-behind, we may be able to construct a regex that works with global matching function. It is not easy to write it completely correct and easy to write a subtly buggy regex.
For languages without \G and look-behind support: it is possible to emulate \G with ^, by chomping the input string after a single match. (Not covered in this answer).
Solution
This solution assumes the regex engine supports \G match boundary, look-ahead (?=pattern), and look-behind (?<=pattern). Java, Perl, PCRE, .NET, Ruby regex flavors support all those advanced features above.
However, you can go with your regex in .NET. Since .NET supports capturing all instances of that is matched by a capturing group that is repeated via CaptureCollection class.
For your case, it can be done in one regex, with the use of \G match boundary, and look-ahead to constrain the number of repetitions:
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
DEMO. The construction is \w+- repeated, then \w+:end.
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
DEMO. The construction is \w+ for the first item, then -\w+ repeated. (Thanks to ka ᵠ for the suggestion). This construction is simpler to reason about its correctness, since there are less alternations.
\G match boundary is especially useful when you need to do tokenization, where you need to make sure the engine not skipping ahead and matching stuffs that should have been invalid.
Explanation
Let us break down the regex:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?<=-)\G
)
(\w+)
(?:-|:end)
The easiest part to recognize is (\w+) in the line before last, which is the word that you want to capture.
The last line is also quite easy to recognize: the word to be matched may be followed by - or :end.
I allow the regex to freely start matching anywhere in the string. In other words, start:...:end can appear anywhere in the string, and any number of times; the regex will simply match all the words. You only need to process the array returned to separate where the matched tokens actually come from.
As for the explanation, the beginning of the regex checks for the presence of the string start:, and the following look-ahead checks that the number of words is within specified limit and it ends with :end. Either that, or we check that the character before the previous match is a -, and continue from previous match.
For the other construction:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?!^)\G-
)
(\w+)
Everything is almost the same, except that we match start:\w+ first before matching the repetition of the form -\w+. In contrast to the first construction, where we match start:\w+- first, and the repeated instances of \w+- (or \w+:end for the last repetition).
It is quite tricky to make this regex works for matching in middle of the string:
We need to check the number of words between start: and :end (as part of the requirement of the original regex).
\G matches the beginning of the string also! (?!^) is needed to prevent this behavior. Without taking care of this, the regex may produce a match when there isn't any start:.
For the first construction, the look-behind (?<=-) already prevent this case ((?!^) is implied by (?<=-)).
For the first construction (?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end), we need to make sure that we don't match anything funny after :end. The look-behind is for that purpose: it prevents any garbage after :end from matching.
The second construction doesn't run into this problem, since we will get stuck at : (of :end) after we have matched all the tokens in between.
Validation Version
If you want to do validation that the input string follows the format (no extra stuff in front and behind), and extract the data, you can add anchors as such:
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
(Look-behind is also not needed, but we still need (?!^) to prevent \G from matching the start of the string).
Construction
For all the problems where you want to capture all instances of a repetition, I don't think there exists a general way to modify the regex. One example of a "hard" (or impossible?) case to convert is when a repetition has to backtrack one or more loop to fulfill certain condition to match.
When the original regex describes the whole input string (validation type), it is usually easier to convert compared to a regex that tries to match from the middle of the string (matching type). However, you can always do a match with the original regex, and we convert matching type problem back to validation type problem.
We build such regex by going through these steps:
Write a regex that covers the part before the repetition (e.g. start:). Let us call this prefix regex.
Match and capture the first instance. (e.g. (\w+))
(At this point, the first instance and delimiter should have been matched)
Add the \G as an alternation. Usually also need to prevent it from matching the start of the string.
Add the delimiter (if any). (e.g. -)
(After this step, the rest of the tokens should have also been matched, except the last maybe)
Add the part that covers the part after the repetition (if necessary) (e.g. :end). Let us call the part after the repetition suffix regex (whether we add it to the construction doesn't matter).
Now the hard part. You need to check that:
There is no other way to start a match, apart from the prefix regex. Take note of the \G branch.
There is no way to start any match after the suffix regex has been matched. Take note of how \G branch starts a match.
For the first construction, if you mix the suffix regex (e.g. :end) with delimiter (e.g. -) in an alternation, make sure you don't end up allowing the suffix regex as delimiter.
Although it might theoretically be possible to write a single expression, it's a lot more practical to match the outer boundaries first and then perform a split on the inner part.
In ECMAScript I would write it like this:
'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end'
.match(/^start:([\w-]+):end$/)[1] // match the inner part
.split('-') // split inner part (this could be a split regex as well)
In PHP:
$txt = 'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end';
if (preg_match('/^start:([\w-]+):end$/', $txt, $matches)) {
print_r(explode('-', $matches[1]));
}
Of course you can use the regex in this quoted string.
"(?<a>\\w+)-(?<b>\\w+)-(?:(?<c>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<d>\\w+)(?:-(?<e>\\w+)(?:-(?<f>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<g>\\w+)(?:-(?<h>\\w+)(?:-(?<i>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<j>\\w+))?" \
")?)?)?" \
")?)?)?" \
")"
Is it a good idea? No, I don't think so.
Not sure you can do it in that way, but you can use the global flag to find all of the words between the colons, see:
http://regex101.com/r/gK0lX1
You'd have to validate the number of groups yourself though. Without the global flag you're only getting a single match, not all matches - change {3,10} to {1,5} and you get the result 'sir' instead.
import re
s = "start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end"
print re.findall(r"(\b\w+?\b)(?:-|:end)", s)
produces
['test', 'test', 'lorem', 'ipsum', 'sir', 'doloret', 'etc', 'etc', 'something']
When you combine:
Your observation: any kind of repitition of a single capture group will result in an overwrite of the last capture, thus returning only the last capture of the capture group.
The knowledge: Any kind of capturing based on the parts, instead of the whole, makes it impossible to set a limit on the amount of times the regex engine will repeat. The limit would have to be metadata (not regex).
With a requirement that the answer cannot involve programming (looping), nor an answer that involves simply copy-pasting capturegroups as you've done in your question.
It can be deduced that it cannot be done.
Update: There are some regex engines for which p. 1 is not necessarily true. In that case the regex you have indicated start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end will do the job (source).
I am trying to create a regex to find the following string:
AGK-XL.
Sometimes before and after this string there are other characters that are usually harmless, except if there is the following pattern before the string:
NOT-
I need to delete/ignore those cases.
This is what I have tried:
^[^N][^O][^T][^\-]AGK-XL\.(\s|\W|$)
But it only seems to match when there are exactly 4 letters in front of the string. How can I express that any other pattern besides NOT- before AGK-XL. is harmless?
Thanks for any hints.
edit: I am using regex in VBA atm.
If you cannot use fancy look-behinds, you can rely on capturing mechanism when you need to match something we do not want, and match and capture what you want. See the The Best Regex Trick Ever at rexegg.com.
However, in this case, you can match and capture NOT-AGK-XL. (so that you can restore it later with $1 backreference), and only match all other occurrences of AGK-XL. that you will remove. Use alternation operator | to match both alternatives:
(NOT-AGK-XL\.(?!\w))|AGK-XL\.(?!\w)
See demo
Note I replaced (\s|\W|$) with (?!\w) that is - IMHO - a better word boundary check.
I keep bumping into situations where I need to capture a number of tokens from a string and after countless tries I couldn't find a way to simplify the process.
So let's say the text is:
start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end
This example has 8 items inside, but say it could have between 3 and 10 items.
I'd ideally like something like this:
start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end nice and clean BUT it only captures the last match. see here
I usually use something like this in simple situations:
start:(\w+)-(\w+)-(\w+)-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?-?(\w+)?:end
3 groups mandatory and another 7 optional because of the max 10 limit, but this doesn't look 'nice' and it would be a pain to write and track if the max limit was 100 and the matches were more complex. demo
And the best I could do so far:
start:(\w+)-((?1))-((?1))-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?-?((?1))?:end
shorter especially if the matches are complex but still long. demo
Anyone managed to make it work as a 1 regex-only solution without programming?
I'm mostly interested on how can this be done in PCRE but other flavors would be ok too.
Update:
The purpose is to validate a match and capture individual tokens inside match 0 by RegEx alone, without any OS/Software/Programming-Language limitation
Update 2 (bounty):
With #nhahtdh's help I got to the RegExp below by using \G:
(?:start:(?=(?:[\w]+(?:-|(?=:end))){3,10}:end)|(?!^)\G-)([\w]+)
demo even shorter, but can be described without repeating code
I'm also interested in the ECMA flavor and as it doesn't support \G wondering if there's another way, especially without using /g modifier.
Read this first!
This post is to show the possibility rather than endorsing the "everything regex" approach to problem. The author has written 3-4 variations, each has subtle bug that are tricky to detect, before reaching the current solution.
For your specific example, there are other better solution that is more maintainable, such as matching and splitting the match along the delimiters.
This post deals with your specific example. I really doubt a full generalization is possible, but the idea behind is reusable for similar cases.
Summary
.NET supports capturing repeating pattern with CaptureCollection class.
For languages that supports \G and look-behind, we may be able to construct a regex that works with global matching function. It is not easy to write it completely correct and easy to write a subtly buggy regex.
For languages without \G and look-behind support: it is possible to emulate \G with ^, by chomping the input string after a single match. (Not covered in this answer).
Solution
This solution assumes the regex engine supports \G match boundary, look-ahead (?=pattern), and look-behind (?<=pattern). Java, Perl, PCRE, .NET, Ruby regex flavors support all those advanced features above.
However, you can go with your regex in .NET. Since .NET supports capturing all instances of that is matched by a capturing group that is repeated via CaptureCollection class.
For your case, it can be done in one regex, with the use of \G match boundary, and look-ahead to constrain the number of repetitions:
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
DEMO. The construction is \w+- repeated, then \w+:end.
(?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
DEMO. The construction is \w+ for the first item, then -\w+ repeated. (Thanks to ka ᵠ for the suggestion). This construction is simpler to reason about its correctness, since there are less alternations.
\G match boundary is especially useful when you need to do tokenization, where you need to make sure the engine not skipping ahead and matching stuffs that should have been invalid.
Explanation
Let us break down the regex:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?<=-)\G
)
(\w+)
(?:-|:end)
The easiest part to recognize is (\w+) in the line before last, which is the word that you want to capture.
The last line is also quite easy to recognize: the word to be matched may be followed by - or :end.
I allow the regex to freely start matching anywhere in the string. In other words, start:...:end can appear anywhere in the string, and any number of times; the regex will simply match all the words. You only need to process the array returned to separate where the matched tokens actually come from.
As for the explanation, the beginning of the regex checks for the presence of the string start:, and the following look-ahead checks that the number of words is within specified limit and it ends with :end. Either that, or we check that the character before the previous match is a -, and continue from previous match.
For the other construction:
(?:
start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)
|
(?!^)\G-
)
(\w+)
Everything is almost the same, except that we match start:\w+ first before matching the repetition of the form -\w+. In contrast to the first construction, where we match start:\w+- first, and the repeated instances of \w+- (or \w+:end for the last repetition).
It is quite tricky to make this regex works for matching in middle of the string:
We need to check the number of words between start: and :end (as part of the requirement of the original regex).
\G matches the beginning of the string also! (?!^) is needed to prevent this behavior. Without taking care of this, the regex may produce a match when there isn't any start:.
For the first construction, the look-behind (?<=-) already prevent this case ((?!^) is implied by (?<=-)).
For the first construction (?:start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end)|(?<=-)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end), we need to make sure that we don't match anything funny after :end. The look-behind is for that purpose: it prevents any garbage after :end from matching.
The second construction doesn't run into this problem, since we will get stuck at : (of :end) after we have matched all the tokens in between.
Validation Version
If you want to do validation that the input string follows the format (no extra stuff in front and behind), and extract the data, you can add anchors as such:
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G-)(\w+)
(?:^start:(?=\w+(?:-\w+){2,9}:end$)|(?!^)\G)(\w+)(?:-|:end)
(Look-behind is also not needed, but we still need (?!^) to prevent \G from matching the start of the string).
Construction
For all the problems where you want to capture all instances of a repetition, I don't think there exists a general way to modify the regex. One example of a "hard" (or impossible?) case to convert is when a repetition has to backtrack one or more loop to fulfill certain condition to match.
When the original regex describes the whole input string (validation type), it is usually easier to convert compared to a regex that tries to match from the middle of the string (matching type). However, you can always do a match with the original regex, and we convert matching type problem back to validation type problem.
We build such regex by going through these steps:
Write a regex that covers the part before the repetition (e.g. start:). Let us call this prefix regex.
Match and capture the first instance. (e.g. (\w+))
(At this point, the first instance and delimiter should have been matched)
Add the \G as an alternation. Usually also need to prevent it from matching the start of the string.
Add the delimiter (if any). (e.g. -)
(After this step, the rest of the tokens should have also been matched, except the last maybe)
Add the part that covers the part after the repetition (if necessary) (e.g. :end). Let us call the part after the repetition suffix regex (whether we add it to the construction doesn't matter).
Now the hard part. You need to check that:
There is no other way to start a match, apart from the prefix regex. Take note of the \G branch.
There is no way to start any match after the suffix regex has been matched. Take note of how \G branch starts a match.
For the first construction, if you mix the suffix regex (e.g. :end) with delimiter (e.g. -) in an alternation, make sure you don't end up allowing the suffix regex as delimiter.
Although it might theoretically be possible to write a single expression, it's a lot more practical to match the outer boundaries first and then perform a split on the inner part.
In ECMAScript I would write it like this:
'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end'
.match(/^start:([\w-]+):end$/)[1] // match the inner part
.split('-') // split inner part (this could be a split regex as well)
In PHP:
$txt = 'start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end';
if (preg_match('/^start:([\w-]+):end$/', $txt, $matches)) {
print_r(explode('-', $matches[1]));
}
Of course you can use the regex in this quoted string.
"(?<a>\\w+)-(?<b>\\w+)-(?:(?<c>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<d>\\w+)(?:-(?<e>\\w+)(?:-(?<f>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<g>\\w+)(?:-(?<h>\\w+)(?:-(?<i>\\w+)" \
"(?:-(?<j>\\w+))?" \
")?)?)?" \
")?)?)?" \
")"
Is it a good idea? No, I don't think so.
Not sure you can do it in that way, but you can use the global flag to find all of the words between the colons, see:
http://regex101.com/r/gK0lX1
You'd have to validate the number of groups yourself though. Without the global flag you're only getting a single match, not all matches - change {3,10} to {1,5} and you get the result 'sir' instead.
import re
s = "start:test-test-lorem-ipsum-sir-doloret-etc-etc-something:end"
print re.findall(r"(\b\w+?\b)(?:-|:end)", s)
produces
['test', 'test', 'lorem', 'ipsum', 'sir', 'doloret', 'etc', 'etc', 'something']
When you combine:
Your observation: any kind of repitition of a single capture group will result in an overwrite of the last capture, thus returning only the last capture of the capture group.
The knowledge: Any kind of capturing based on the parts, instead of the whole, makes it impossible to set a limit on the amount of times the regex engine will repeat. The limit would have to be metadata (not regex).
With a requirement that the answer cannot involve programming (looping), nor an answer that involves simply copy-pasting capturegroups as you've done in your question.
It can be deduced that it cannot be done.
Update: There are some regex engines for which p. 1 is not necessarily true. In that case the regex you have indicated start:(?:(\w+)-?){3,10}:end will do the job (source).
I'm working on compiling a table of cases for a legal book. I've converted it to HTML so I can use the tags for search and replace operations, and I'm currently working in Kate. The text refers to the names of cases and the citations for the cases are in the footnotes, e.g.
<i>Smith v Jones</i>127 ......... [other stuff including newline characters].......</br>127 (1937) 173 ER 406;
I've been able to get lookahead working in Kate, using:
<i>.*</i>([0-9]{1,4}) .+<br/>\1 .*<br/>
...but I've run into greediness problems.
The text is a mess, so I really need to find matches step by step rather than relying on a batch process.
Is there a Linux (or Windows) text editor that supports both lookahead AND non-greedy operators, or am I going to have to try grep or sed?
I'm not familiar with Kate, but it seems to use QRegExp, which is incompatible with other Perl-like regex flavors in many important ways. For example, most flavors allow you make individual quantifiers non-greedy by appending a question mark (e.g. .* => .+?), but in QRegExp you can only make them all greedy or all non-greedy. What's worse, it looks like Kate doesn't even let you do that--via a Non-Greedy checkbox, for example.
But it's best not to rely on non-greedy quantifiers all time anyway. For one thing, they don't guarantee the shortest possible match, as many people say. You should get in the habit of being more specific about what should and should not be matched, when that's not too difficult. For example, if the section you want to match doesn't contain any tags other than the ones in your sample string, you can do this:
<i>[^<]*</i>(\d+)\b[^<]+<br/>\1\b[^<]*<br/>
The advantage of using [^<]* instead of .* is that it will never try to match anything after the next <. .* will always grab the rest of the document at first, only to backtrack almost all the way to the starting point. The non-greedy version, .*?, will initially match only to the next <, but if the match attempt fails later on it will go ahead and consume the < and beyond, eventually to consume the whole document.
If there can be other tags, you can use [^<]*(<(?!br/>)[^<]*)* instead. It will consume any characters that are not <, or < if it's not the beginning of a <br/> tag.
<i>[^<]*</i>(\d+)\b[^<]*(<(?!br/>)[^<]*)*<br/>\1\b[^<]*(<(?!br/>)[^<]*)*<br/>
By the way, what you're calling a lookahead (I'm assuming you mean \1) is really a backreference. The (?!br/>) in my regex is an example of lookaheads--in this case a negative lookahead. The Kate/QRegExp docs claim that lookaheads are supported but non-capturing groups-- e.g. (?:...)--aren't, which is why used all capturing groups in that last regex.
If you have the option of switching to a different editor, I strongly recommend that you do so. My favorite is EditPad Pro; it has the best regex support I've ever seen in an editor.
I'd like to have regex that would match every [[ except these starting with some word, ex.:
Match [[DEF, but not match [[ABC:DEF.
Thanks for help and sorry for my English.
EDIT:
My regex (Python) is (\[\[)|(\{\{([Tt]emplate:|)[Cc]ategory).
It match every [[ and {{category}} or {{Template:Category}} or {{template:category}}, but I don't want to match [[ if it starting by ex. ABC. More examples:
Match [[SOMETHING, but not match [[ABC: SOMETHING,
Match [[EXAMPLE, but not match [[ABC: EXAMPLE.
EDIT2: "define ex. ABC"
I want match every [[ not followed by some string, for example ABC.
This depends heavily on the regex engine you are using. If I can assume it can handle look-arounds, the regex would probably be \[\[(?!ABC) for matching two opening brackets not followed by the three characters ABC.
match every [[ but don't match [[ if it starting by ex. ABC
Maybe you mean:
\[\[(?!ABC)
...or maybe something more like:
\[\[(?!\w+:)
Finally, after 8 years, here's an easy copy-paste code that should cover every possible case.
Watch out for:
Be careful when using this for "any-word-except", make sure to put \b in the theREGEX_BEFORE part, as you should be doing anyways for finding words.
If your regex is really complex, and you need to use this code in two different places in one regex expression, make sure to use exceptions_group_1 for the first time, exceptions_group_2 for the second time, etc. Read the explanation below to understand this better.
Copy/Paste Code:
In the following regex, ONLY replace the all-caps sections with your regex.
Python regex
pattern = r"REGEX_BEFORE(?>(?P<exceptions_group_1>EXCEPTION_PATTERN)|YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)REGEX_AFTER"
Ruby regex
pattern = /REGEX_BEFORE(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>EXCEPTION_PATTERN)|YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN)(?(<exceptions_group_1>)always(?<=fail)|)REGEX_AFTER/
PCRE regex
REGEX_BEFORE(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>EXCEPTION_PATTERN)|YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)REGEX_AFTER
JavaScript
Impossible as of 6/17/2020, and probably won't be possible in the near future.
Full Examples
REGEX_BEFORE = [[
YOUR_NORMAL_PATTERN = \w+\d*
REGEX_AFTER = ]]
EXCEPTION_PATTERN = MyKeyword\d+
Python regex
pattern = r"\[\[(?>(?P<exceptions_group_1>MyKeyword\d+)|\w+\d*)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)\]\]"
Ruby regex
pattern = /\[\[(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>MyKeyword\d+)|\w+\d*)(?(<exceptions_group_1>)always(?<=fail)|)\]\]/
PCRE regex
\[\[(?>(?<exceptions_group_1>MyKeyword\d+)|\w+\d*)(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|)\]\]
How does it work?
This uses decently complicated regex, namely Atomic Groups, Conditionals, Lookbehinds, and Named Groups.
The (?> is the start of an atomic group, which means its not allowed to backtrack: which means, If that group matches once, but then later gets invalidated because a lookbehind failed, then the whole group will fail to match. (We want this behavior in this case).
The (?<exceptions_group_1> creates a named capture group. Its just easier than using numbers. Note that the pattern first tries to find the exception, and then falls back on the normal pattern if it couldn't find the exception.
Note that the atomic pattern first tries to find the exception, and then falls back on the normal pattern if it couldn't find the exception.
The real magic is in the (?(exceptions_group_1). This is a conditional asking whether or not exceptions_group_1 was successfully matched. If it was, then it tries to find always(?<=fail). That pattern (as it says) will always fail, because its looking for the word "always" and then it checks 'does "ways"=="fail"', which it never will.
Because the conditional fails, this means the atomic group fails, and because it's atomic that means its not allowed to backtrack (to try to look for the normal pattern) because it already matched the exception.
This is definitely not how these tools were intended to be used, but it should work reliably and efficiently.
Exact answer to the original question:
pattern = r"(\[\[(?>(?P<exceptions_group_1>ABC: )|(SOMETHING|EXAMPLE))(?(exceptions_group_1)always(?<=fail)|))"