Conditions updated
There is often a situation where you want to extract a substring upto (immediately before) certain characters. For example, suppose you have a text that:
Does not start with a semicolon or a period,
Contains several sentences,
Does not contain any "\n", and
Ends with a period,
and you want to extract the sequence from the start upto the closest semicolon or period. Two strategies come to mind:
/[^;.]*/
/.*?[;.]/
I do either of these quite randomly, with slight preference to the second strategy, and also see both ways in other people's code. Which is the better way? Is there a clear reason to prefer one over the other, or are there better ways? I personally feel, efficiency aside, that negating something (as with [^]) is conceptually more complex than not doing it. But efficiency may also be a good reason to chose one over the other.
I came up with my answer. The two regexes in my question were actually not expressing the same thing. And the better approach depends on what you want.
If you want a match up to and including a certain character, then using
/.*?[;.]/
is simpler.
If you want a match up to right before (excluding) a certain character, then you should use:
/[^;.]*/
Well, the first way is probably more efficient, not that it's likely to matter. By the way, \z in a character class does not mean "end of input"--in fact, it's a syntax error in every flavor I know of. /[^;.]*/ is all you need anyway.
I personally prefer the first one because it does exactly as you would expect. Get all characters except ...
But it's mostly a matter of preference. There are nearly always multiple ways to write a regular expression and it's mostly style that matters.
For example... do you prefer [0-9], [:digit:] or \d? They all do exactly* the same.
* In case of unicode the [:digit:] and \d classes match some other characters too.
you left out one other strategy. string split?
"my sentence; blahblah".split(/[;.]/,2)[0]
I think that it is mostly a matter of opinion as to which regular expression you use. On the note of efficiency, though, I think that adding \A to the beginning of a regular expression in this case would make the process faster because well designed regular expression engines should only try to match once in that case. For example:
/\A[^.;]/m
Note the m option; it indicates that newline characters can also be matched. This is just a technicality I would add for generic examples, but may not apply to you.
Although adding more to the solution might be viewed as increasing complexity, it can also serve to clarify meaning.
Related
I've seen regex patterns that use explicitly numbered repetition instead of ?, * and +, i.e.:
Explicit Shorthand
(something){0,1} (something)?
(something){1} (something)
(something){0,} (something)*
(something){1,} (something)+
The questions are:
Are these two forms identical? What if you add possessive/reluctant modifiers?
If they are identical, which one is more idiomatic? More readable? Simply "better"?
To my knowledge they are identical. I think there maybe a few engines out there that don't support the numbered syntax but I'm not sure which. I vaguely recall a question on SO a few days ago where explicit notation wouldn't work in Notepad++.
The only time I would use explicitly numbered repetition is when the repetition is greater than 1:
Exactly two: {2}
Two or more: {2,}
Two to four: {2,4}
I tend to prefer these especially when the repeated pattern is more than a few characters. If you have to match 3 numbers, some people like to write: \d\d\d but I would rather write \d{3} since it emphasizes the number of repetitions involved. Furthermore, down the road if that number ever needs to change, I only need to change {3} to {n} and not re-parse the regex in my head or worry about messing it up; it requires less mental effort.
If that criteria isn't met, I prefer the shorthand. Using the "explicit" notation quickly clutters up the pattern and makes it hard to read. I've worked on a project where some developers didn't know regex too well (it's not exactly everyone's favorite topic) and I saw a lot of {1} and {0,1} occurrences. A few people would ask me to code review their pattern and that's when I would suggest changing those occurrences to shorthand notation and save space and, IMO, improve readability.
I can see how, if you have a regex that does a lot of bounded repetition, you might want to use the {n,m} form consistently for readability's sake. For example:
/^
abc{2,5}
xyz{0,1}
foo{3,12}
bar{1,}
$/x
But I can't recall ever seeing such a case in real life. When I see {0,1}, {0,} or {1,} being used in a question, it's virtually always being done out of ignorance. And in the process of answering such a question, we should also suggest that they use the ?, * or + instead.
And of course, {1} is pure clutter. Some people seem to have a vague notion that it means "one and only one"--after all, it must mean something, right? Why would such a pathologically terse language support a construct that takes up a whole three characters and does nothing at all? Its only legitimate use that I know of is to isolate a backreference that's followed by a literal digit (e.g. \1{1}0), but there are other ways to do that.
They're all identical unless you're using an exceptional regex engine. However, not all regex engines support numbered repetition, ? or +.
If all of them are available, I'd use characters rather than numbers, simply because it's more intuitive for me.
They're equivalent (and you'll find out if they're available by testing your context.)
The problem I'd anticipate is when you may not be the only person ever needing to work with your code.
Regexes are difficult enough for most people. Anytime someone uses an unusual syntax, the question
arises: "Why didn't they do it the standard way? What were they thinking that I'm missing?"
I've seen regex patterns that use explicitly numbered repetition instead of ?, * and +, i.e.:
Explicit Shorthand
(something){0,1} (something)?
(something){1} (something)
(something){0,} (something)*
(something){1,} (something)+
The questions are:
Are these two forms identical? What if you add possessive/reluctant modifiers?
If they are identical, which one is more idiomatic? More readable? Simply "better"?
To my knowledge they are identical. I think there maybe a few engines out there that don't support the numbered syntax but I'm not sure which. I vaguely recall a question on SO a few days ago where explicit notation wouldn't work in Notepad++.
The only time I would use explicitly numbered repetition is when the repetition is greater than 1:
Exactly two: {2}
Two or more: {2,}
Two to four: {2,4}
I tend to prefer these especially when the repeated pattern is more than a few characters. If you have to match 3 numbers, some people like to write: \d\d\d but I would rather write \d{3} since it emphasizes the number of repetitions involved. Furthermore, down the road if that number ever needs to change, I only need to change {3} to {n} and not re-parse the regex in my head or worry about messing it up; it requires less mental effort.
If that criteria isn't met, I prefer the shorthand. Using the "explicit" notation quickly clutters up the pattern and makes it hard to read. I've worked on a project where some developers didn't know regex too well (it's not exactly everyone's favorite topic) and I saw a lot of {1} and {0,1} occurrences. A few people would ask me to code review their pattern and that's when I would suggest changing those occurrences to shorthand notation and save space and, IMO, improve readability.
I can see how, if you have a regex that does a lot of bounded repetition, you might want to use the {n,m} form consistently for readability's sake. For example:
/^
abc{2,5}
xyz{0,1}
foo{3,12}
bar{1,}
$/x
But I can't recall ever seeing such a case in real life. When I see {0,1}, {0,} or {1,} being used in a question, it's virtually always being done out of ignorance. And in the process of answering such a question, we should also suggest that they use the ?, * or + instead.
And of course, {1} is pure clutter. Some people seem to have a vague notion that it means "one and only one"--after all, it must mean something, right? Why would such a pathologically terse language support a construct that takes up a whole three characters and does nothing at all? Its only legitimate use that I know of is to isolate a backreference that's followed by a literal digit (e.g. \1{1}0), but there are other ways to do that.
They're all identical unless you're using an exceptional regex engine. However, not all regex engines support numbered repetition, ? or +.
If all of them are available, I'd use characters rather than numbers, simply because it's more intuitive for me.
They're equivalent (and you'll find out if they're available by testing your context.)
The problem I'd anticipate is when you may not be the only person ever needing to work with your code.
Regexes are difficult enough for most people. Anytime someone uses an unusual syntax, the question
arises: "Why didn't they do it the standard way? What were they thinking that I'm missing?"
I have a regex in which the same match criteria can apply to multiple delimiters. [], (), and <> are all valid. For example purposes it looks like this:
\[.\]|\(.\)|<.>
Is there some way to remove the redundancy from the above regex? The match criteria inside the delimiters is always the same, but the delimiters themselves may be different.
I'm guessing you're asking because
[[(<].[])>]
isn't exact enough, for obvious reasons.
It's always dangerous to answer, "No, there is no way," because it's hard to be sure one has checked every possible way. One must often come up with a solid proof to answer in such cases.
I'm not sure this is a strong-enough proof, or even a "proof" at all, but consider this (pseudo-)information-theory perspective:
The PCRE engine itself has no knowledge of any relation between the pairs of characters, [], (), and <>. Thus, the expression itself must contain that information, i.e. require at least the six characters []()<> to be present.
Not only that, but for the same reason, the expression itself must define at least two pairings (leaving the third to be implied). I'm not sure how to prove that two alternation operators (|) is the best you can do, but I mean, even if there were a more compact way, you're going to save one character at most, since at least one bit is required to say, "Pairings exist!"
The escaping of meta-characters can only be compacted by the fact that []() can appear within character classes without being escaped, but firstly, that isn't really a "removal of redundancy" as much as it is "a lucky circumstance in syntax", and secondly, you still have to add two characters for the definition of said character class: [].
Therefore, it is my belief that even from a theoretical perspective, if my presumptions about what a regex engine cannot know are true, then one can save at most three characters from the regex you've already provided: \[.\]|\(.\)|<.>.
I eagerly look forward to being corrected by the regex gurus!
If you really are using the PCRE library (via PHP, for example) you can use a DEFINE group to create a subroutine, like so:
'~(?(DEFINE)(?<content>\w+))(?:<(?&content)>|\[(?&content)\]|\((?&content)\))~'
...or more readably:
(?(DEFINE)(?<content>\w+))
(?:
<(?&content)>
|
\[(?&content)\]
|
\((?&content)\)
)
Here's a demo in PHP. It should work in Perl, too.
I've seen regex patterns that use explicitly numbered repetition instead of ?, * and +, i.e.:
Explicit Shorthand
(something){0,1} (something)?
(something){1} (something)
(something){0,} (something)*
(something){1,} (something)+
The questions are:
Are these two forms identical? What if you add possessive/reluctant modifiers?
If they are identical, which one is more idiomatic? More readable? Simply "better"?
To my knowledge they are identical. I think there maybe a few engines out there that don't support the numbered syntax but I'm not sure which. I vaguely recall a question on SO a few days ago where explicit notation wouldn't work in Notepad++.
The only time I would use explicitly numbered repetition is when the repetition is greater than 1:
Exactly two: {2}
Two or more: {2,}
Two to four: {2,4}
I tend to prefer these especially when the repeated pattern is more than a few characters. If you have to match 3 numbers, some people like to write: \d\d\d but I would rather write \d{3} since it emphasizes the number of repetitions involved. Furthermore, down the road if that number ever needs to change, I only need to change {3} to {n} and not re-parse the regex in my head or worry about messing it up; it requires less mental effort.
If that criteria isn't met, I prefer the shorthand. Using the "explicit" notation quickly clutters up the pattern and makes it hard to read. I've worked on a project where some developers didn't know regex too well (it's not exactly everyone's favorite topic) and I saw a lot of {1} and {0,1} occurrences. A few people would ask me to code review their pattern and that's when I would suggest changing those occurrences to shorthand notation and save space and, IMO, improve readability.
I can see how, if you have a regex that does a lot of bounded repetition, you might want to use the {n,m} form consistently for readability's sake. For example:
/^
abc{2,5}
xyz{0,1}
foo{3,12}
bar{1,}
$/x
But I can't recall ever seeing such a case in real life. When I see {0,1}, {0,} or {1,} being used in a question, it's virtually always being done out of ignorance. And in the process of answering such a question, we should also suggest that they use the ?, * or + instead.
And of course, {1} is pure clutter. Some people seem to have a vague notion that it means "one and only one"--after all, it must mean something, right? Why would such a pathologically terse language support a construct that takes up a whole three characters and does nothing at all? Its only legitimate use that I know of is to isolate a backreference that's followed by a literal digit (e.g. \1{1}0), but there are other ways to do that.
They're all identical unless you're using an exceptional regex engine. However, not all regex engines support numbered repetition, ? or +.
If all of them are available, I'd use characters rather than numbers, simply because it's more intuitive for me.
They're equivalent (and you'll find out if they're available by testing your context.)
The problem I'd anticipate is when you may not be the only person ever needing to work with your code.
Regexes are difficult enough for most people. Anytime someone uses an unusual syntax, the question
arises: "Why didn't they do it the standard way? What were they thinking that I'm missing?"
I have always written regexes like this
([^<]*)
but I just learned about this lazy thing and that I can write it like this
(.*?)
is there any disadvantage to using this second approach? The regex is definitely more compact (even SO parses it better).
Edit: There are two best answers here, which point out two important differences between the expressions. ysth's answer points to a weakness in the non-greedy/lazy one, in which the hyperlink itself could possibly include other attributes of the A tag (definitely not good). Rob Kennedy points out a weakness in the greedy example, in that anchor texts cannot include other tags (definitely not okay, because it wouldn't grab all the anchor text either)... so the answer is that, regular expressions being what they are, lazy and non-lazy solutions that seem the same are probably not semantically equivalent.
Edit: Third best answer is by Alan M about relative speed of the expressions. For the time being, I'll mark his as best answer so people give him more points :)
Another thing to consider is how long the target text is, and how much of it is going to be matched by the quantified subexpression. For example, if you were trying to match the whole <BODY> element in a large HTML document, you might be tempted to use this regex:
/<BODY>.*?<\/BODY>/is
But that's going to do a whole lot of unnecessary work, matching one character at a time while effectively doing a negative lookahead before each one. You know the </BODY> tag is going to be very near the end of the document, so the smart thing to do is to use a normal greedy quantitier; let it slurp up the whole rest of the document and then backtrack the few characters necessary to match the end tag.
In most cases you won't notice any speed difference between greedy and reluctant quantifiers, but it's something to keep in mind. The main reason why you should be judicious in your use of reluctant quantifiers is the one that was pointed out by the others: they may do it reluctantly, but they will match more than you want them to if that's what it takes to achieve an overall match.
The complemented character class more rigorously defines what you want to match, so whenever you can, I'd use it.
The non greedy regex will match things you probably don't want, such as:
foo
where your first .*? matches
foo" NAME="foo
Note that your examples are not equivalent. Your first regular expression will not select any links that contain other tags, such as img or b. The second regular expression will, and I expect that's probably what you wanted anyway.
Besides the difference in meaning, the only disadvantage I can think of is that support for non-greedy modifiers isn't quite as prevalent as character-class negation is. It's more widely supported than I thought, before I checked, but notably absent from the list is GNU Grep. If the regular-expression evaluators you're using support it, then go ahead and use it.
It's not about better or worse. The term I've seen the most is greedy vs. non-greedy, but however you put they do two different things. You want to use the right one for the task. I.e. turn off the greedy option when you don't want to capture multiple matches in a line.
“lazy” is the wrong word here. You mean non-greedy as opposed to greedy. There's no disadvantage in using it, that I know of. But in your special case, neither should it be more efficient.
Non-greedy is better, is it not? It works forward, checking for a match each time and stopping when it finds one, whereas the normal kleene closure (*) works backwards matching the rest of the input and removing things until it finds a match.
In the end, they do different things, but I think non-greedy outperforms greedy. Bear in mind that I haven't tested this, but now I'm curious.