Sorry in advance that this might be a little challenging to read...
I'm trying to parse a line (actually a subject line from an IMAP server) that looks like this:
=?utf-8?Q?Here is som?= =?utf-8?Q?e text.?=
It's a little hard to see, but there are two =?/?= pairs in the above line. (There will always be one pair; there can theoretically be many.) In each of those =?/?= pairs, I want the third argument (as defined by a ? delimiter) extracted. (In the first pair, it's "Here is som", and in the second it's "e text.")
Here's the regex I'm using:
=\?(.+)\?.\?(.*?)\?=
I want it to return two matches, one for each =?/?= pair. Instead, it's returning the entire line as a single match. I would have thought that the ? in the (.*?), to make the * operator lazy, would have kept this from happening, but obviously it doesn't.
Any suggestions?
EDIT: Per suggestions below to replace ".?" with "[^(\?=)]?" I'm now trying to do:
=\?(.+)\?.\?([^(\?=)]*?)\?=
...but it's not working, either. (I'm unsure whether [^(\?=)]*? is the proper way to test for exclusion of a two-character sequence like "?=". Is it correct?)
Try this:
\=\?([^?]+)\?.\?(.*?)\?\=
I changed the .+ to [^?]+, which means "everything except ?"
A good practice in my experience is not to use .*? but instead do use the * without the ?, but refine the character class. In this case [^?]* to match a sequence of non-question mark characters.
You can also match more complex endmarkers this way, for instance, in this case your end-limiter is ?=, so you want to match nonquestionmarks, and questionmarks followed by non-equals:
([^?]*\?[^=])*[^?]*
At this point it becomes harder to choose though. I like that this solution is stricter, but readability decreases in this case.
One solution:
=\?(.*?)\?=\s*=\?(.*?)\?=
Explanation:
=\? # Literal characters '=?'
(.*?) # Match each character until find next one in the regular expression. A '?' in this case.
\?= # Literal characters '?='
\s* # Match spaces.
=\? # Literal characters '=?'
(.*?) # Match each character until find next one in the regular expression. A '?' in this case.
\?= # Literal characters '?='
Test in a 'perl' program:
use warnings;
use strict;
while ( <DATA> ) {
printf qq[Group 1 -> %s\nGroup 2 -> %s\n], $1, $2 if m/=\?(.*?)\?=\s*=\?(.*?)\?=/;
}
__DATA__
=?utf-8?Q?Here is som?= =?utf-8?Q?e text.?=
Running:
perl script.pl
Results:
Group 1 -> utf-8?Q?Here is som
Group 2 -> utf-8?Q?e text.
EDIT to comment:
I would use the global modifier /.../g. Regular expression would be:
/=\?(?:[^?]*\?){2}([^?]*)/g
Explanation:
=\? # Literal characters '=?'
(?:[^?]*\?){2} # Any number of characters except '?' with a '?' after them. This process twice to omit the string 'utf-8?Q?'
([^?]*) # Save in a group next characters until found a '?'
/g # Repeat this process multiple times until end of string.
Tested in a Perl script:
use warnings;
use strict;
while ( <DATA> ) {
printf qq[Group -> %s\n], $1 while m/=\?(?:[^?]*\?){2}([^?]*)/g;
}
__DATA__
=?utf-8?Q?Here is som?= =?utf-8?Q?e text.?= =?utf-8?Q?more text?=
Running and results:
Group -> Here is som
Group -> e text.
Group -> more text
Thanks for everyone's answers! The simplest expression that solved my issue was this:
=\?(.*?)\?.\?(.*?)\?=
The only difference between this and my originally-posted expression was the addition of a ? (non-greedy) operator on the first ".*". Critical, and I'd forgotten it.
Related
I'm trying to learn something about regular expressions.
Here is what I'm going to match:
/parent/child
/parent/child?
/parent/child?firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?secondparam=def456
/parent/child?firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
/parent/child?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?thirdparam=ghi789&secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child?thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child/
/parent/child/?
/parent/child/?firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456
/parent/child/?firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?thirdparam=ghi789&secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child/?thirdparam=ghi789
My expression should "grabs" abc123 and def456.
And now just an example about what I'm not going to match ("question mark" is missing):
/parent/child/firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
Well, I built the following expression:
^(?:/parent/child){1}(?:^(?:/\?|\?)+(?:firstparam=([^&]*)|secondparam=([^&]*)|[^&]*)?)?
But that doesn't work.
Could you help me to understand what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks in advance.
UPDATE 1
Ok, I made other tests.
I'm trying to fix the previous version with something like this:
/parent/child(?:(?:\?|/\?)+(?:firstparam=([^&]*)|secondparam=([^&]*)|[^&]*)?)?$
Let me explain my idea:
Must start with /parent/child:
/parent/child
Following group is optional
(?: ... )?
The previous optional group must starts with ? or /?
(?:\?|/\?)+
Optional parameters (I grab values if specified parameters are part of querystring)
(?:firstparam=([^&]*)|secondparam=([^&]*)|[^&]*)?
End of line
$
Any advice?
UPDATE 2
My solution must be based just on regular expressions.
Just for example, I previously wrote the following one:
/parent/child(?:[?&/]*(?:firstparam=([^&]*)|secondparam=([^&]*)|[^&]*))*$
And that works pretty nice.
But it matches the following input too:
/parent/child/firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
How could I modify the expression in order to not match the previous string?
You didn't specify a language so I'll just usre Perl. So basically instead of matching everything, I just matched exactly what I thought you needed. Correct me if I am wrong please.
while ($subject =~ m/(?<==)\w+?(?=&|\W|$)/g) {
# matched text = $&
}
(?<= # Assert that the regex below can be matched, with the match ending at this position (positive lookbehind)
= # Match the character “=” literally
)
\\w # Match a single character that is a “word character” (letters, digits, and underscores)
+? # Between one and unlimited times, as few times as possible, expanding as needed (lazy)
(?= # Assert that the regex below can be matched, starting at this position (positive lookahead)
# Match either the regular expression below (attempting the next alternative only if this one fails)
& # Match the character “&” literally
| # Or match regular expression number 2 below (attempting the next alternative only if this one fails)
\\W # Match a single character that is a “non-word character”
| # Or match regular expression number 3 below (the entire group fails if this one fails to match)
\$ # Assert position at the end of the string (or before the line break at the end of the string, if any)
)
Output:
This regex will work as long as you know what your parameter names are going to be and you're sure that they won't change.
\/parent\/child\/?\?(?:(?:firstparam|secondparam|thirdparam)\=([\w]+)&?)(?:(?:firstparam|secondparam|thirdparam)\=([\w]+)&?)?(?:(?:firstparam|secondparam|thirdparam)\=([\w]+)&?)?
Whilst regex is not the best solution for this (the above code examples will be far more efficient, as string functions are way faster than regexes) this will work if you need a regex solution with up to 3 parameters. Out of interest, why must the solution use only regex?
In any case, this regex will match the following strings:
/parent/child?firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?secondparam=def456
/parent/child?firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
/parent/child?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?thirdparam=ghi789&secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child?thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child/?firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456
/parent/child/?firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?thirdparam=ghi789&secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child/?thirdparam=ghi789
It will now only match those containing query string parameters, and put them into capture groups for you.
What language are you using to process your matches?
If you are using preg_match with PHP, you can get the whole match as well as capture groups in an array with
preg_match($regex, $string, $matches);
Then you can access the whole match with $matches[0] and the rest with $matches[1], $matches[2], etc.
If you want to add additional parameters you'll also need to add them in the regex too, and add additional parts to get your data. For example, if you had
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&fourthparam=jkl01112&thirdparam=ghi789
The regex will become
\/parent\/child\/?\?(?:(?:firstparam|secondparam|thirdparam|fourthparam)\=([\w]+)&?)(?:(?:firstparam|secondparam|thirdparam|fourthparam)\=([\w]+)&?)?(?:(?:firstparam|secondparam|thirdparam|fourthparam)\=([\w]+)&?)?(?:(?:firstparam|secondparam|thirdparam|fourthparam)\=([\w]+)&?)?
This will become a bit more tedious to maintain as you add more parameters, though.
You can optionally include ^ $ at the start and end if the multi-line flag is enabled. If you also need to match the whole lines without query strings, wrap this whole regex in a non-capture group (including ^ $) and add
|(?:^\/parent\/child\/?\??$)
to the end.
You're not escaping the /s in your regex for starters and using {1} for a single repetition of something is unnecessary; you only use those when you want more than one repetition or a range of repetitions.
And part of what you're trying to do is simply not a good use of a regex. I'll show you an easier way to deal with that: you want to use something like split and put the information into a hash that you can check the contents of later. Because you didn't specify a language, I'm just going to use Perl for my example, but every language I know with regexes also has easy access to hashes and something like split, so this should be easy enough to port:
# I picked an example to show how this works.
my $route = '/parent/child/?first=123&second=345&third=678';
my %params; # I'm going to put those URL parameters in this hash.
# Perl has a way to let me avoid escaping the /s, but I wanted an example that
# works in other languages too.
if ($route =~ m/\/parent\/child\/\?(.*)/) { # Use the regex for this part
print "Matched route.\n";
# But NOT for this part.
my $query = $1; # $1 is a Perl thing. It contains what (.*) matched above.
my #items = split '&', $query; # Each item is something like param=123
foreach my $item (#items) {
my ($param, $value) = split '=', $item;
$params{$param} = $value; # Put the parameters in a hash for easy access.
print "$param set to $value \n";
}
}
# Now you can check the parameter values and do whatever you need to with them.
# And you can add new parameters whenever you want, etc.
if ($params{'first'} eq '123') {
# Do whatever
}
My solution:
/(?:\w+/)*(?:(?:\w+)?\?(?:\w+=\w+(?:&\w+=\w+)*)?|\w+|)
Explain:
/(?:\w+/)* match /parent/child/ or /parent/
(?:\w+)?\?(?:\w+=\w+(?:&\w+=\w+)*)? match child?firstparam=abc123 or ?firstparam=abc123 or ?
\w+ match text like child
..|) match nothing(empty)
If you need only query string, pattern would reduce such as:
/(?:\w+/)*(?:\w+)?\?(\w+=\w+(?:&\w+=\w+)*)
If you want to get every parameter from query string, this is a Ruby sample:
re = /\/(?:\w+\/)*(?:\w+)?\?(\w+=\w+(?:&\w+=\w+)*)/
s = '/parent/child?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&thirdparam=ghi789'
if m = s.match(re)
query_str = m[1] # now, you can 100% trust this string
query_str.scan(/(\w+)=(\w+)/) do |param,value| #grab parameter
printf("%s, %s\n", param, value)
end
end
output
secondparam, def456
firstparam, abc123
thirdparam, ghi789
This script will help you.
First, i check, is there any symbol like ?.
Then, i kill first part of line (left from ?).
Next, i split line by &, where each value splitted by =.
my $r = q"/parent/child
/parent/child?
/parent/child?firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?secondparam=def456
/parent/child?firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
/parent/child?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?thirdparam=ghi789&secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child?thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child/
/parent/child/?
/parent/child/?firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456
/parent/child/?firstparam=abc123&secondparam=def456
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?thirdparam=ghi789&secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123
/parent/child/?secondparam=def456&firstparam=abc123&thirdparam=ghi789
/parent/child/?thirdparam=ghi789";
for my $string(split /\n/, $r){
if (index($string,'?')!=-1){
substr($string, 0, index($string,'?')+1,"");
#say "string = ".$string;
if (index($string,'=')!=-1){
my #params = map{$_ = [split /=/, $_];}split/\&/, $string;
$"="\n";
say "$_->[0] === $_->[1]" for (#params);
say "######next########";
}
else{
#print "there is no params!"
}
}
else{
#say "there is no params!";
}
}
I have the (what I believe to be) negative lookahead assertion <#> *(?!QQQ) that I expect to match if the tested string is a <#> followed by any number of spaces (zero including) and then not followed by QQQ.
Yet, if the tested string is <#> QQQ the regular expression matches.
I fail to see why this is the case and would appreciate any help on this matter.
Here's a test script
use warnings;
use strict;
my #strings = ('something <#> QQQ',
'something <#> RRR',
'something <#>QQQ' ,
'something <#>RRR' );
print "$_\n" for map {$_ . " --> " . rep($_) } (#strings);
sub rep {
my $string = shift;
$string =~ s,<#> *(?!QQQ),at w/o ,;
$string =~ s,<#> *QQQ,at w/ QQQ,;
return $string;
}
This prints
something <#> QQQ --> something at w/o QQQ
something <#> RRR --> something at w/o RRR
something <#>QQQ --> something at w/ QQQ
something <#>RRR --> something at w/o RRR
And I'd have expected the first line to be something <#> QQQ --> something at w/ QQQ.
It matches because zero is included in "any number". So no spaces, followed by a space, matches "any number of spaces not followed by a Q".
You should add another lookahead assertion that the first thing after your spaces is not itself a space. Try this (untested):
<#> *(?!QQQ)(?! )
ETA Side note: changing the quantifier to + would have helped only when there's exactly one space; in the general case, the regex can always grab one less space and therefore succeed. Regexes want to match, and will bend over backwards to do so in any way possible. All other considerations (leftmost, longest, etc) take a back seat - if it can match more than one way, they determine which way is chosen. But matching always wins over not matching.
$string =~ s,<#> *(?!QQQ),at w/o ,;
$string =~ s,<#> *QQQ,at w/ QQQ,;
One problem of yours here is that you are viewing the two regexes separately. You first ask to replace the string without QQQ, and then to replace the string with QQQ. This is actually checking the same thing twice, in a sense. For example: if (X==0) { ... } elsif (X!=0) { ... }. In other words, the code may be better written:
unless ($string =~ s,<#> *QQQ,at w/ QQQ,) {
$string =~ s,<#> *,at w/o,;
}
You always have to be careful with the * quantifier. Since it matches zero or more times, it can also match the empty string, which basically means: it can match any place in any string.
A negative look-around assertion has a similar quality, in the sense that it needs to only find a single thing that differs in order to match. In this case, it matches the part "<#> " as <#> + no space + space, where space is of course "not" QQQ. You are more or less at a logical impasse here, because the * quantifier and the negative look-ahead counter each other.
I believe the correct way to solve this is to separate the regexes, like I showed above. There is no sense in allowing the possibility of both regexes being executed.
However, for theoretical purposes, a working regex that allows both any number of spaces, and a negative look-ahead would need to be anchored. Much like Mark Reed has shown. This one might be the simplest.
<#>(?! *QQQ) # Add the spaces to the look-ahead
The difference is that now the spaces and Qs are anchored to each other, whereas before they could match separately. To drive home the point of the * quantifier, and also solve a minor problem of removing additional spaces, you can use:
<#> *(?! *QQQ)
This will work because either of the quantifiers can match the empty string. Theoretically, you can add as many of these as you want, and it will make no difference (except in performance): / * * * * * * */ is functionally equivalent to / */. The difference here is that spaces combined with Qs may not exist.
The regex engine will backtrack until it finds a match, or until finding a match is impossible. In this case, it found the following match:
+--------------- Matches "<#>".
| +----------- Matches "" (empty string).
| | +--- Doesn't match " QQQ".
| | |
--- ---- ---
'something <#> QQQ' =~ /<#> [ ]* (?!QQQ)/x
All you need to do is shuffle things around. Replace
/<#>[ ]*(?!QQQ)/
with
/<#>(?![ ]*QQQ)/
Or you can make it so the regex will only match all the spaces:
/<#>[ ]*+(?!QQQ)/
/<#>[ ]*(?![ ]|QQQ)/
/<#>[ ]*(?![ ])(?!QQQ)/
PS — Spaces are hard to see, so I use [ ] to make them more visible. It gets optimised away anyway.
I don't write many regular expressions so I'm going to need some help on the one.
I need a regular expression that can validate that a string is an alphanumeric comma delimited string.
Examples:
123, 4A67, GGG, 767 would be valid.
12333, 78787&*, GH778 would be invalid
fghkjhfdg8797< would be invalid
This is what I have so far, but isn't quite right: ^(?=.*[a-zA-Z0-9][,]).*$
Any suggestions?
Sounds like you need an expression like this:
^[0-9a-zA-Z]+(,[0-9a-zA-Z]+)*$
Posix allows for the more self-descriptive version:
^[[:alnum:]]+(,[[:alnum:]]+)*$
^[[:alnum:]]+([[:space:]]*,[[:space:]]*[[:alnum:]]+)*$ // allow whitespace
If you're willing to admit underscores, too, search for entire words (\w+):
^\w+(,\w+)*$
^\w+(\s*,\s*\w+)*$ // allow whitespaces around the comma
Try this pattern: ^([a-zA-Z0-9]+,?\s*)+$
I tested it with your cases, as well as just a single number "123". I don't know if you will always have a comma or not.
The [a-zA-Z0-9]+ means match 1 or more of these symbols
The ,? means match 0 or 1 commas (basically, the comma is optional)
The \s* handles 1 or more spaces after the comma
and finally the outer + says match 1 or more of the pattern.
This will also match
123 123 abc (no commas) which might be a problem
This will also match 123, (ends with a comma) which might be a problem.
Try the following expression:
/^([a-z0-9\s]+,)*([a-z0-9\s]+){1}$/i
This will work for:
test
test, test
test123,Test 123,test
I would strongly suggest trimming the whitespaces at the beginning and end of each item in the comma-separated list.
You seem to be lacking repetition. How about:
^(?:[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+,)*[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+$
I'm not sure how you'd express that in VB.Net, but in Python:
>>> import re
>>> x [ "123, $a67, GGG, 767", "12333, 78787&*, GH778" ]
>>> r = '^(?:[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+,)*[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+$'
>>> for s in x:
... print re.match( r, s )
...
<_sre.SRE_Match object at 0xb75c8218>
None
>>>>
You can use shortcuts instead of listing the [a-zA-Z0-9 ] part, but this is probably easier to understand.
Analyzing the highlights:
[a-zA-Z0-9 ]+ : capture one or more (but not zero) of the listed ranges, and space.
(?:[...]+,)* : In non-capturing parenthesis, match one or more of the characters, plus a comma at the end. Match such sequences zero or more times. Capturing zero times allows for no comma.
[...]+ : capture at least one of these. This does not include a comma. This is to ensure that it does not accept a trailing comma. If a trailing comma is acceptable, then the expression is easier: ^[a-zA-Z0-9 ,]+
Yes, when you want to catch comma separated things where a comma at the end is not legal, and the things match to $LONGSTUFF, you have to repeat $LONGSTUFF:
$LONGSTUFF(,$LONGSTUFF)*
If $LONGSTUFF is really long and contains comma repeated items itself etc., it might be a good idea to not build the regexp by hand and instead rely on a computer for doing that for you, even if it's just through string concatenation. For example, I just wanted to build a regular expression to validate the CPUID parameter of a XEN configuration file, of the ['1:a=b,c=d','2:e=f,g=h'] type. I... believe this mostly fits the bill: (whitespace notwithstanding!)
xend_fudge_item_re = r"""
e[a-d]x= #register of the call return value to fudge
(
0x[0-9A-F]+ | #either hardcode the reply
[10xks]{32} #or edit the bitfield directly
)
"""
xend_string_item_re = r"""
(0x)?[0-9A-F]+: #leafnum (the contents of EAX before the call)
%s #one fudge
(,%s)* #repeated multiple times
""" % (xend_fudge_item_re, xend_fudge_item_re)
xend_syntax = re.compile(r"""
\[ #a list of
'%s' #string elements
(,'%s')* #repeated multiple times
\]
$ #and nothing else
""" % (xend_string_item_re, xend_string_item_re), re.VERBOSE | re.MULTILINE)
Try ^(?!,)((, *)?([a-zA-Z0-9])\b)*$
Step by step description:
Don't match a beginning comma (good for the upcoming "loop").
Match optional comma and spaces.
Match characters you like.
The match of a word boundary make sure that a comma is necessary if more arguments are stacked in string.
Please use - ^((([a-zA-Z0-9\s]){1,45},)+([a-zA-Z0-9\s]){1,45})$
Here, I have set max word size to 45, as longest word in english is 45 characters, can be changed as per requirement
How do I get the substring " It's big \"problem " using a regular expression?
s = ' function(){ return " It\'s big \"problem "; }';
/"(?:[^"\\]|\\.)*"/
Works in The Regex Coach and PCRE Workbench.
Example of test in JavaScript:
var s = ' function(){ return " Is big \\"problem\\", \\no? "; }';
var m = s.match(/"(?:[^"\\]|\\.)*"/);
if (m != null)
alert(m);
This one comes from nanorc.sample available in many linux distros. It is used for syntax highlighting of C style strings
\"(\\.|[^\"])*\"
As provided by ePharaoh, the answer is
/"([^"\\]*(\\.[^"\\]*)*)"/
To have the above apply to either single quoted or double quoted strings, use
/"([^"\\]*(\\.[^"\\]*)*)"|\'([^\'\\]*(\\.[^\'\\]*)*)\'/
Most of the solutions provided here use alternative repetition paths i.e. (A|B)*.
You may encounter stack overflows on large inputs since some pattern compiler implements this using recursion.
Java for instance: http://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6337993
Something like this:
"(?:[^"\\]*(?:\\.)?)*", or the one provided by Guy Bedford will reduce the amount of parsing steps avoiding most stack overflows.
/(["\']).*?(?<!\\)(\\\\)*\1/is
should work with any quoted string
"(?:\\"|.)*?"
Alternating the \" and the . passes over escaped quotes while the lazy quantifier *? ensures that you don't go past the end of the quoted string. Works with .NET Framework RE classes
/"(?:[^"\\]++|\\.)*+"/
Taken straight from man perlre on a Linux system with Perl 5.22.0 installed.
As an optimization, this regex uses the 'posessive' form of both + and * to prevent backtracking, for it is known beforehand that a string without a closing quote wouldn't match in any case.
This one works perfect on PCRE and does not fall with StackOverflow.
"(.*?[^\\])??((\\\\)+)?+"
Explanation:
Every quoted string starts with Char: " ;
It may contain any number of any characters: .*? {Lazy match}; ending with non escape character [^\\];
Statement (2) is Lazy(!) optional because string can be empty(""). So: (.*?[^\\])??
Finally, every quoted string ends with Char("), but it can be preceded with even number of escape sign pairs (\\\\)+; and it is Greedy(!) optional: ((\\\\)+)?+ {Greedy matching}, bacause string can be empty or without ending pairs!
An option that has not been touched on before is:
Reverse the string.
Perform the matching on the reversed string.
Re-reverse the matched strings.
This has the added bonus of being able to correctly match escaped open tags.
Lets say you had the following string; String \"this "should" NOT match\" and "this \"should\" match"
Here, \"this "should" NOT match\" should not be matched and "should" should be.
On top of that this \"should\" match should be matched and \"should\" should not.
First an example.
// The input string.
const myString = 'String \\"this "should" NOT match\\" and "this \\"should\\" match"';
// The RegExp.
const regExp = new RegExp(
// Match close
'([\'"])(?!(?:[\\\\]{2})*[\\\\](?![\\\\]))' +
'((?:' +
// Match escaped close quote
'(?:\\1(?=(?:[\\\\]{2})*[\\\\](?![\\\\])))|' +
// Match everything thats not the close quote
'(?:(?!\\1).)' +
'){0,})' +
// Match open
'(\\1)(?!(?:[\\\\]{2})*[\\\\](?![\\\\]))',
'g'
);
// Reverse the matched strings.
matches = myString
// Reverse the string.
.split('').reverse().join('')
// '"hctam "\dluohs"\ siht" dna "\hctam TON "dluohs" siht"\ gnirtS'
// Match the quoted
.match(regExp)
// ['"hctam "\dluohs"\ siht"', '"dluohs"']
// Reverse the matches
.map(x => x.split('').reverse().join(''))
// ['"this \"should\" match"', '"should"']
// Re order the matches
.reverse();
// ['"should"', '"this \"should\" match"']
Okay, now to explain the RegExp.
This is the regexp can be easily broken into three pieces. As follows:
# Part 1
(['"]) # Match a closing quotation mark " or '
(?! # As long as it's not followed by
(?:[\\]{2})* # A pair of escape characters
[\\] # and a single escape
(?![\\]) # As long as that's not followed by an escape
)
# Part 2
((?: # Match inside the quotes
(?: # Match option 1:
\1 # Match the closing quote
(?= # As long as it's followed by
(?:\\\\)* # A pair of escape characters
\\ #
(?![\\]) # As long as that's not followed by an escape
) # and a single escape
)| # OR
(?: # Match option 2:
(?!\1). # Any character that isn't the closing quote
)
)*) # Match the group 0 or more times
# Part 3
(\1) # Match an open quotation mark that is the same as the closing one
(?! # As long as it's not followed by
(?:[\\]{2})* # A pair of escape characters
[\\] # and a single escape
(?![\\]) # As long as that's not followed by an escape
)
This is probably a lot clearer in image form: generated using Jex's Regulex
Image on github (JavaScript Regular Expression Visualizer.)
Sorry, I don't have a high enough reputation to include images, so, it's just a link for now.
Here is a gist of an example function using this concept that's a little more advanced: https://gist.github.com/scagood/bd99371c072d49a4fee29d193252f5fc#file-matchquotes-js
here is one that work with both " and ' and you easily add others at the start.
("|')(?:\\\1|[^\1])*?\1
it uses the backreference (\1) match exactley what is in the first group (" or ').
http://www.regular-expressions.info/backref.html
One has to remember that regexps aren't a silver bullet for everything string-y. Some stuff are simpler to do with a cursor and linear, manual, seeking. A CFL would do the trick pretty trivially, but there aren't many CFL implementations (afaik).
A more extensive version of https://stackoverflow.com/a/10786066/1794894
/"([^"\\]{50,}(\\.[^"\\]*)*)"|\'[^\'\\]{50,}(\\.[^\'\\]*)*\'|“[^”\\]{50,}(\\.[^“\\]*)*”/
This version also contains
Minimum quote length of 50
Extra type of quotes (open “ and close ”)
If it is searched from the beginning, maybe this can work?
\"((\\\")|[^\\])*\"
I faced a similar problem trying to remove quoted strings that may interfere with parsing of some files.
I ended up with a two-step solution that beats any convoluted regex you can come up with:
line = line.replace("\\\"","\'"); // Replace escaped quotes with something easier to handle
line = line.replaceAll("\"([^\"]*)\"","\"x\""); // Simple is beautiful
Easier to read and probably more efficient.
If your IDE is IntelliJ Idea, you can forget all these headaches and store your regex into a String variable and as you copy-paste it inside the double-quote it will automatically change to a regex acceptable format.
example in Java:
String s = "\"en_usa\":[^\\,\\}]+";
now you can use this variable in your regexp or anywhere.
(?<="|')(?:[^"\\]|\\.)*(?="|')
" It\'s big \"problem "
match result:
It\'s big \"problem
("|')(?:[^"\\]|\\.)*("|')
" It\'s big \"problem "
match result:
" It\'s big \"problem "
Messed around at regexpal and ended up with this regex: (Don't ask me how it works, I barely understand even tho I wrote it lol)
"(([^"\\]?(\\\\)?)|(\\")+)+"
I have a regular expression to match a persons name.
So far I have ^([a-zA-Z\'\s]+)$ but id like to add a check to allow for a maximum of 4 spaces. How do I amend it to do this?
Edit: what i meant was 4 spaces anywhere in the string
Don't attempt to regex validate a name. People are allowed to call themselves what ever they like. This can include ANY character. Just because you live somewhere that only uses English doesn't mean that all the people who use your system will have English names. We have even had to make the name field in our system Unicode. It is the only Unicode type in the database.
If you care, we actually split the name at " " and store each name part as a separate record, but we have some very specific requirements that mean this is a good idea.
PS. My step mum has 5 spaces in her name.
^ # Start of string
(?!\S*(?:\s\S*){5}) # Negative look-ahead for five spaces.
([a-zA-Z\'\s]+)$ # Original regex
Or in one line:
^(?!(?:\S*\s){5})([a-zA-Z\'\s]+)$
If there are five or more spaces in the string, five will be matched by the negative lookahead, and the whole match will fail. If there are four or less, the original regex will be matched.
Screw the regex.
Using a regex here seems to be creating a problem for a solution instead of just solving a problem.
This task should be 'easy' for even a novice programmer, and the novel idea of regex has polluted our minds!.
1: Get Input
2: Trim White Space
3: If this makes sence, trim out any 'bad' characters.
4: Use the "split" utility provided by your language to break it into words
5: Return the first 5 Words.
ROCKET SCIENCE.
replies
what do you mean screw the regex? your obviously a VB programmer.
Regex is the most efficient way to work with strings. Learn them.
No. Php, toyed a bit with ruby, now going manically into perl.
There are some thing ( like this case ) where the regex based alternative is computationally and logically exponentially overly complex for the task.
I've parse entire php source files with regex, I'm not exactly a novice in their use.
But there are many cases, such as this, where you're employing a logging company to prune your rose bush.
I could do all steps 2 to 5 with regex of course, but they would be simple and atomic regex, with no weird backtracking syntax or potential for recursive searching.
The steps 1 to 5 I list above have a known scope, known range of input, and there's no ambiguity to how it functions. As to your regex, the fact you have to get contributions of others to write something so simple is proving the point.
I see somebody marked my post as offensive, I am somewhat unhappy I can't mark this fact as offensive to me. ;)
Proof Of Pudding:
sub getNames{
my #args = #_;
my $text = shift #args;
my $num = shift #args;
# Trim Whitespace from Head/End
$text =~ s/^\s*//;
$text =~ s/\s*$//;
# Trim Bad Characters (??)
$text =~ s/[^a-zA-Z\'\s]//g;
# Tokenise By Space
my #words = split( /\s+/, $text );
#return 0..n
return #words[ 0 .. $num - 1 ];
} ## end sub getNames
print join ",", getNames " Hello world this is a good test", 5;
>> Hello,world,this,is,a
If there is anything ambiguous to anybody how that works, I'll be glad to explain it to them. Noted that I'm still doing it with regexps. Other languages I would have used their native "trim" functions provided where possible.
Bollocks -->
I first tried this approach. This is your brain on regex. Kids, don't do regex.
This might be a good start
/([^\s]+
(\s[^\s]+
(\s[^\s]+
(\s[^\s]+
(\s[^\s]+|)
|)
|)
|)
)/
( Linebroken for clarity )
/([^\s]+(\s[^\s]+(\s[^\s]+(\s[^\s]+|)|)|))/
( Actual )
I've used [^\s]+ here instead of your A-Z combo for succintness, but the point is here the nested optional groups
ie:
(Hello( this( is( example))))
(Hello( this( is( example( two)))))
(Hello( this( is( better( example))))) three
(Hello( this( is()))))
(Hello( this()))
(Hello())
( Note: this, while being convoluted, has the benefit that it will match each name into its own group )
If you want readable code:
$word = '[^\s]+';
$regex = "/($word(\s$word(\s$word(\s$word(\s$word|)|)|)|)|)/";
( it anchors around the (capture|) mantra of "get this, or get nothing" )
#Sir Psycho : Be careful about your assumptions here. What about hyphenated names? Dotted names (e.g. Brian R. Bondy) and so on?
Here's the answer that you're most likely looking for:
^[a-zA-Z']+(\s[a-zA-Z']+){0,4}$
That says (in English): "From start to finish, match one or more letters, there can also be a space followed by another 'name' up to four times."
BTW: Why do you want them to have apostrophes anywhere in the name?
^([a-zA-Z']+\s){0,4}[a-zA-Z']+$
This assumes you want 4 spaces inside this string (i.e. you have trimmed it)
Edit: If you want 4 spaces anywhere I'd recommend not using regex - you'd be better off using a substr_count (or the equivalent in your language).
I also agree with pipTheGeek that there are so many different ways of writing names that you're probably best off trusting the user to get their name right (although I have found that a lot of people don't bother using capital letters on ecommerce checkouts).
Match multiple whitespace followed by two characters at the end of the line.
Related problem ----
From a string, remove trailing 2 characters preceded by multiple white spaces... For example, if the column contains this string -
" 'This is a long string with 2 chars at the end AB "
then, AB should be removed while retaining the sentence.
Solution ----
select 'This is a long string with 2 chars at the end AB' as "C1",
regexp_replace('This is a long string with 2 chars at the end AB',
'[[[:space:]][a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z]]*$') as "C2" from dual;
Output ----
C1
This is a long string with 2 chars at the end AB
C2
This is a long string with 2 chars at the end
Analysis ----
regular expression specifies - match and replace zero or more occurences (*) of a space ([:space:]) followed by combination of two characters ([a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z]) at the end of the line.
Hope this is useful.