This has been driving me nuts. I'm trying to match everything that doesn't end in .js. I'm using perl, so ?<! etc. is more than welcome.
What I'm trying to do:
Do match these
mainfile
jquery.1.1.11
my.module
Do NOT match these
mainfile.js
jquery.1.1.11.js
my.module.js
This should be an insanely simple task, but I'm just stuck. I looked in the docs for both regex, sed, perl and was even fiddling around for half an hour on regexr. Intuitively, this example (/^.*?(?!\.js)$/) should do it. I guess I just stared myself blind.
Thanks in advance.
You can use this regex to make sure your match doesn't end with .js:
^(?!.+\.js$).+$
RegEx Demo
(?!.+\.js$) is a negative lookahead condition to fail the match if line has .js at the end.
This one should suit your needs:
^.*(?<![.]js)$
The simplest approach when you only have negative matching conditions is to construct a positive regex and then check that it doesn't match.
if ($string !~ /\.js$/)
{
print "Doesn't end in .js";
}
This is easier to understand and more efficient than a negative look-around.
Look-arounds are only needed when you need to mix positive and negative conditions (for example, "I need to match "foo" out of a string, but only when it is not followed by "bar"). Even then, sometimes it is easier to use multiple simple patterns and logic, rather than meeting all your requirements with one complex pattern.
Many regex questions lately have some kind of look-around element in the query that appears to me is not necessary to the success of the match. Is there some teaching resource that is promoting them? I am trying to figure out what kinds of cases you would be better off using a positive look ahead/behind. The main application I can see is when trying to not match an element. But, for example, this query from a recent question has a simple solution to capturing the .*, but why would you use a look behind?
(?<=<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">).*(?=<\/a><span
And this one from another question:
$url = "www.example.com/id/1234";
preg_match("/\d+(?<=id\/[\d])/",$url,$matches);
When is it truly better to use a positive look-around? Can you give some examples?
I realize this is bordering on an opinion-based question, but I think the answers would be really instructive. Regex is confusing enough without making things more complicated... I have read this page and am more interested in some simple guidelines for when to use them rather than how they work.
Thanks for all the replies. In addition to those below, I recommend checking out m.buettner's great answer here.
You can capture overlapping matches, and you can find matches which could lie in the lookarounds of other matches.
You can express complex logical assertions about your match (because many engines let you use multiple lookbehind/lookahead assertions which all must match in order for the match to succeed).
Lookaround is a natural way to express the common constraint "matches X, if it is followed by/preceded by Y". It is (arguably) less natural to add extra "matching" parts that have to be thrown out by postprocessing.
Negative lookaround assertions, of course, are even more useful. Combined with #2, they can allow you do some pretty wizard tricks, which may even be hard to express in usual program logic.
Examples, by popular request:
Overlapping matches: suppose you want to find all candidate genes in a given genetic sequence. Genes generally start with ATG, and end with TAG, TAA or TGA. But, candidates could overlap: false starts may exist. So, you can use a regex like this:
ATG(?=((?:...)*(?:TAG|TAA|TGA)))
This simple regex looks for the ATG start-codon, followed by some number of codons, followed by a stop codon. It pulls out everything that looks like a gene (sans start codon), and properly outputs genes even if they overlap.
Zero-width matching: suppose you want to find every tr with a specific class in a computer-generated HTML page. You might do something like this:
<tr class="TableRow">.*?</tr>(?=<tr class="TableRow">|</table>)
This deals with the case in which a bare </tr> appears inside the row. (Of course, in general, an HTML parser is a better choice, but sometimes you just need something quick and dirty).
Multiple constraints: suppose you have a file with data like id:tag1,tag2,tag3,tag4, with tags in any order, and you want to find all rows with tags "green" and "egg". This can be done easily with two lookaheads:
(.*):(?=.*\bgreen\b)(?=.*\begg\b)
There are two great things about lookaround expressions:
They are zero-width assertions. They require to be matched, but they consume nothing of the input string. This allows to describe parts of the string which will not be contained in a match result. By using capturing groups in lookaround expressions, they are the only way to capture parts of the input multiple times.
They simplify a lot of things. While they do not extend regular languages, they easily allow to combine (intersect) multiple expressions to match the same part of a string.
Well one simple case where they are handy is when you are anchoring the pattern to the start or finish of a line, and just want to make sure that something is either right ahead or behind the pattern you are matching.
I try to address your points:
some kind of look-around element in the query that appears to me is not necessary to the success of the match
Of course they are necessary for the match. As soon as a lookaround assertions fails, there is no match. They can be used to ensure conditions around the pattern, that have additionally to be true. The whole regex does only match, if:
The pattern does fit and
The lookaround assertions are true.
==> But the returned match is only the pattern.
When is it truly better to use a positive look-around?
Simple answer: when you want stuff to be there, but you don't want to match it!
As Bergi mentioned in his answer, they are zero width assertions, this means they don't match a character sequence, they just ensure it is there. So the characters inside a lookaround expression are not "consumed", the regex engine continues after the last "consumed" character.
Regarding your first example:
(?<=<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">).*(?=<\/a><span
I think there is a misunderstanding on your side, when you write "has a simple solution to capturing the .*". The .* is not "captured", it is the only thing that the expression does match. But only those characters are matched that have a "<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">" before and a "<\/a><span" after (those two are not part of the match!).
"Captured" is only something that has been matched by a capturing group.
The second example
\d+(?<=id\/[\d])
Is interesting. It is matching a sequence of digits (\d+) and after the sequence, the lookbehind assertion checks if there is one digit with "id/" before it. Means it will fail if there is more than one digit or if the text "id/" before the digit is missing. Means this regex is matching only one digit, when there is fitting text before.
teaching resources
www.regular-expressions.info
perlretut on Looking ahead and looking behind
I'm assuming you understand the good uses of lookarounds, and ask why they are used with no apparent reason.
I think there are four main categories of how people use regular expressions:
Validation
Validation is usually done on the whole text. Lookarounds like you describe are not possible.
Match
Extracting a part of the text. Lookarounds are used mainly due to developer laziness: avoiding captures.
For example, if we have in a settings file with the line Index=5, we can match /^Index=(\d+)/ and take the first group, or match /(?<=^Index=)\d+/ and take everything.
As other answers said, sometimes you need overlapping between matches, but these are relatively rare.
Replace
This is similar to match with one difference: the whole match is removed and is being replaced with a new string (and some captured groups).
Example: we want to highlight the name in "Hi, my name is Bob!".
We can replace /(name is )(\w+)/ with $1<b>$2</b>,
but it is neater to replace /(?<=name is )\w+/ with <b>$&</b> - and no captures at all.
Split
split takes the text and breaks it to an array of tokens, with your pattern being the delimiter. This is done by:
Find a match. Everything before this match is token.
The content of the match is discarded, but:
In most flavors, each captured group in the match is also a token (notably not in Java).
When there are no more matches, the rest of the text is the last token.
Here, lookarounds are crucial. Matching a character means removing it from the result, or at least separating it from its token.
Example: We have a comma separated list of quoted string: "Hello","Hi, I'm Jim."
Splitting by comma /,/ is wrong: {"Hello", "Hi, I'm Jim."}
We can't add the quote mark, /",/: {"Hello, "Hi, I'm Jim."}
The only good option is lookbehind, /(?<="),/: {"Hello", "Hi, I'm Jim."}
Personally, I prefer to match the tokens rather than split by the delimiter, whenever that is possible.
Conclusion
To answer the main question - these lookarounds are used because:
Sometimes you can't match text that need.
Developers are shiftless.
Lookaround assertions can also be used to reduce backtracking which can be the main cause for a bad performance in regexes.
For example: The regex ^[0-9A-Z]([-.\w]*[0-9A-Z])*#(1) can also be written ^[0-9A-Z][-.\w]*(?<=[0-9A-Z])#(2) using a positive look behind (simple validation of the user name in an e-mail address).
Regex (1) can cause a lot of backtracking essentially because [0-9A-Z] is a subset of [-.\w] and the nested quantifiers. Regex (2) reduces the excessive backtracking, more information here Backtracking, section Controlling Backtracking > Lookbehind Assertions.
For more information about backtracking
Best Practices for Regular Expressions in the .NET Framework
Optimizing Regular Expression Performance, Part II: Taking Charge of Backtracking
Runaway Regular Expressions: Catastrophic Backtracking
I typed this a while back but got busy (still am, so I might take a while to reply back) and didn't get around to post it. If you're still open to answers...
Is there some teaching resource that is promoting them?
I don't think so, it's just a coincidence I believe.
But, for example, this query from a recent question has a simple solution to capturing the .*, but why would you use a look behind?
(?<=<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0, 5}">).*(?=<\/a><span
This is most probably a C# regex, since variable width lookbehinds are not supported my many regex engines. Well, the lookarounds could be certainly avoided here, because for this, I believe it's really simpler to have capture groups (and make the .* lazy as we're at it):
(<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0,5}">).*?(<\/a><span)
If it's for a replace, or
<td><a href="\/xxx\.html\?n=[0-9]{0,5}">(.*?)<\/a><span
for a match. Though an html parser would definitely be more advisable here.
Lookarounds in this case I believe are slower. See regex101 demo where the match is 64 steps for capture groups but 94+19 = 1-3 steps for the lookarounds.
When is it truly better to use a positive look-around? Can you give some examples?
Well, lookarounds have the property of being zero-width assertions, which mean they don't really comtribute to matches while they contribute onto deciding what to match and also allows overlapping matches.
Thinking a bit about it, I think, too, that negative lookarounds get used much more often, but that doesn't make positive lookarounds less useful!
Some 'exploits' I can find browsing some old answers of mine (links below will be demos from regex101) follow. When/If you see something you're not familiar about, I probably won't be explaining it here, since the question's focused on positive lookarounds, but you can always look at the demo links I provided where there's a description of the regex, and if you still want some explanation, let me know and I'll try to explain as much as I can.
To get matches between certain characters:
In some matches, positive lookahead make things easier, where a lookahead could do as well, or when it's not so practical to use no lookarounds:
Dog sighed. "I'm no super dog, nor special dog," said Dog, "I'm an ordinary dog, now leave me alone!" Dog pushed him away and made his way to the other dog.
We want to get all the dog (regardless of case) outside quotes. With a positive lookahead, we can do this:
\bdog\b(?=(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*$)
to ensure that there are even number of quotes ahead. With a negative lookahead, it would look like this:
\bdog\b(?!(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*"[^"]*$)
to ensure that there are no odd number of quotes ahead. Or use something like this if you don't want a lookahead, but you'll have to extract the group 1 matches:
(?:"[^"]+"[^"]+?)?(\bdog\b)
Okay, now say we want the opposite; find 'dog' inside the quotes. The regex with the lookarounds just need to have the sign inversed, first and second:
\bdog\b(?!(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*$)
\bdog\b(?=(?:[^"]*"[^"]*")*[^"]*"[^"]*$)
But without the lookaheads, it's not possible. the closest you can get is maybe this:
"[^"]*(\bdog\b)[^"]*"
But this doesn't get all the matches, or you can maybe use this:
"[^"]*?(\bdog\b)[^"]*?(?:(\bdog\b)[^"]*?)?"
But it's just not practical for more occurrences of dog and you get the results in variables with increasing numbers... And this is indeed easier with lookarounds, because they are zero width assertions, you don't have to worry about the expression inside the lookaround to match dog or not, or the regex wouldn't have obtained all the occurrences of dog in the quotes.
Of course now, this logic can be extended to groups of characters, such as getting specific patterns between words such as start and end.
Overlapping matches
If you have a string like:
abcdefghijkl
And want to extract all the consecutive 3 characters possible inside, you can use this:
(?=(...))
If you have something like:
1A Line1 Detail1 Detail2 Detail3 2A Line2 Detail 3A Line3 Detail Detail
And want to extract these, knowing that each line starts with #A Line# (where # is a number):
1A Line1 Detail1 Detail2 Detail3
2A Line2 Detail
3A Line3 Detail Detail
You might try this, which fails because of greediness...
[0-9]+A Line[0-9]+(?: \w+)+
Or this, which when made lazy no more works...
[0-9]+A Line[0-9]+(?: \w+)+?
But with a positive lookahead, you get this:
[0-9]+A Line[0-9]+(?: \w+)+?(?= [0-9]+A Line[0-9]+|$)
And appropriately extracts what's needed.
Another possible situation is one where you have something like this:
#ff00fffirstword#445533secondword##008877thi#rdword#
Which you want to convert to three pairs of variables (first of the pair being a # and some hex values (6) and whatever characters after them):
#ff00ff and firstword
#445533 and secondword#
#008877 and thi#rdword#
If there were no hashes inside the 'words', it would have been enough to use (#[0-9a-f]{6})([^#]+), but unfortunately, that's not the case and you have to resort to .*? instead of [^#]+, which doesn't quite yet solve the issue of stray hashes. Positive lookaheads however make this possible:
(#[0-9a-f]{6})(.+?)(?=#[0-9a-f]{6}|$)
Validation & Formatting
Not recommended, but you can use positive lookaheads for quick validations. The following regex for instance allow the entry of a string containing at least 1 digit and 1 lowercase letter.
^(?=[^0-9]*[0-9])(?=[^a-z]*[a-z])
This can be useful when you're checking for character length but have patterns of varying length in the a string, for example, a 4 character long string with valid formats where # indicates a digit and the hyphen/dash/minus - must be in the middle:
##-#
#-##
A regex like this does the trick:
^(?=.{4}$)\d+-\d+
Where otherwise, you'd do ^(?:[0-9]{2}-[0-9]|[0-9]-[0-9]{2})$ and imagine now that the max length was 15; the number of alterations you'd need.
If you want a quick and dirty way to rearrange some dates in the 'messed up' format mmm-yyyy and yyyy-mm to a more uniform format mmm-yyyy, you can use this:
(?=.*(\b\w{3}\b))(?=.*(\b\d{4}\b)).*
Input:
Oct-2013
2013-Oct
Output:
Oct-2013
Oct-2013
An alternative might be to use a regex (normal match) and process separately all the non-conforming formats separately.
Something else I came across on SO was the indian currency format, which was ##,##,###.### (3 digits to the left of the decimal and all other digits groupped in pair). If you have an input of 122123123456.764244, you expect 1,22,12,31,23,456.764244 and if you want to use a regex, this one does this:
\G\d{1,2}\K\B(?=(?:\d{2})*\d{3}(?!\d))
(The (?:\G|^) in the link is only used because \G matches only at the start of the string and after a match) and I don't think this could work without the positive lookahead, since it looks forward without moving the point of replacement.)
Trimming
Suppose you have:
this is a sentence
And want to trim all the spaces with a single regex. You might be tempted to do a general replace on spaces:
\s+
But this yields thisisasentence. Well, maybe replace with a single space? It now yields " this is a sentence " (double quotes used because backticks eats spaces). Something you can however do is this:
^\s*|\s$|\s+(?=\s)
Which makes sure to leave one space behind so that you can replace with nothing and get "this is a sentence".
Splitting
Well, somewhere else where positive lookarounds might be useful is where, say you have a string ABC12DE3456FGHI789 and want to get the letters+digits apart, that is you want to get ABC12, DE3456 and FGHI789. You can easily do use the regex:
(?<=[0-9])(?=[A-Z])
While if you use ([A-Z]+[0-9]+) (i.e. the captured groups are put back in the resulting list/array/etc, you will be getting empty elements as well.
Note that this could be done with a match as well, with [A-Z]+[0-9]+
If I had to mention negative lookarounds, this post would have been even longer :)
Keep in mind that a positive/negative lookaround is the same for a regex engine. The goal of lookarounds is to perform a check somewhere in your "regular expression".
One of the main interest is to capture something without using capturing parenthesis (capturing the whole pattern), example:
string: aaabbbccc
regex: (?<=aaa)bbb(?=ccc)
(you obtain the result with the whole pattern)
instead of: aaa(bbb)ccc
(you obtain the result with the capturing group.)
I am trying to form a regular expression that will match strings that do NOT end a with a DOT FOLLOWED BY NUMBER.
eg.
abcd1
abcdf12
abcdf124
abcd1.0
abcd1.134
abcdf12.13
abcdf124.2
abcdf124.21
I want to match first three.
I tried modifying this post but it didn't work for me as the number may have variable length.
Can someone help?
You can use something like this:
^((?!\.[\d]+)[\w.])+$
It anchors at the start and end of a line. It basically says:
Anchor at the start of the line
DO NOT match the pattern .NUMBERS
Take every letter, digit, etc, unless we hit the pattern above
Anchor at the end of the line
So, this pattern matches this (no dot then number):
This.Is.Your.Pattern or This.Is.Your.Pattern2012
However it won't match this (dot before the number):
This.Is.Your.Pattern.2012
EDIT: In response to Wiseguy's comment, you can use this:
^((?!\.[\d]+$)[\w.])+$ - which provides an anchor after the number. Therefore, it must be a dot, then only a number at the end... not that you specified that in your question..
If you can relax your restrictions a bit, you may try using this (extended) regular expression:
^[^.]*.?[^0-9]*$
You may omit anchoring metasymbols ^ and $ if you're using function/tool that matches against whole string.
Explanation: This regex allows any symbols except dot until (optional) dot is found, after which all non-numerical symbols are allowed. It won't work for numbers in improper format, like in string: abcd1...3 or abcd1.fdfd2. It also won't work correctly for some string with multiple dots, like abcd.ab123cd.a (the problem description is a bit ambigous).
Philosophical explanation: When using regular expressions, often you don't need to do exactly what your task seems to be, etc. So even simple regex will do the job. An abstract example: you have a file with lines are either numbers, or some complicated names(without digits), and say, you want to filter out all numbers, then simple filtering by [^0-9] - grep '^[0-9]' will do the job.
But if your task is more complex and requires validation of format and doing other fancy stuff on data, why not use a simple script(say, in awk, python, perl or other language)? Or a short "hand-written" function, if you're implementing stand-alone application. Regexes are cool, but they are often not the right tool to use.
I would just use a simple negative look-behind anchored at the end:
.*(?<!\\.\\d+)$
I'm sure this is a simple question for someone at ease with regular expressions:
I need to match everything up until the character #
I don't want the string following the # character, just the stuff before it, and the character itself should not be matched. This is the most important part, and what I'm mainly asking. As a second question, I would also like to know how to match the rest, after the # character. But not in the same expression, because I will need that in another context.
Here's an example string:
topics/install.xml#id_install
I want only topics/install.xml. And for the second question (separate expression) I want id_install
First expression:
^([^#]*)
Second expression:
#(.*)$
[a-zA-Z0-9]*[\#]
If your string contains any other special characters you need to add them into the first square bracket escaped.
I don't use C#, but i will assume that it uses pcre... if so,
"([^#]*)#.*"
with a call to 'match'. A call to 'search' does not need the trailing ".*"
The parens define the 'keep group'; the [^#] means any character that is not a '#'
You probably tried something like
"(.*)#.*"
and found that it fails when multiple '#' signs are present (keeping the leading '#'s)?
That is because ".*" is greedy, and will match as much as it can.
Your matcher should have a method that looks something like 'group(...)'. Most matchers
return the entire matched sequence as group(0), the first paren-matched group as group(1),
and so forth.
PCRE is so important i strongly encourage you to search for it on google, learn it, and always have it in your programming toolkit.
Use look ahead and look behind:
To get all characters up to, but not including the pound (#): .*?(?=\#)
To get all characters following, but not including the pound (#): (?<=\#).*
If you don't mind using groups, you can do it all in one shot:
(.*?)\#(.*) Your answers will be in group(1) and group(2). Notice the non-greedy construct, *?, which will attempt to match as little as possible instead of as much as possible.
If you want to allow for missing # section, use ([^\#]*)(?:\#(.*))?. It uses a non-collecting group to test the second half, and if it finds it, returns everything after the pound.
Honestly though, for you situation, it is probably easier to use the Split method provided in String.
More on lookahead and lookbehind
first:
/[^\#]*(?=\#)/ edit: is faster than /.*?(?=\#)/
second:
/(?<=\#).*/
For something like this in C# I would usually skip the regular expressions stuff altogether and do something like:
string[] split = exampleString.Split('#');
string firstString = split[0];
string secondString = split[1];
I'm processing a file, line-by-line, and I'd like to do an inverse match. For instance, I want to match lines where there is a string of six letters, but only if these six letters are not 'Andrea'. How should I do that?
I'm using RegexBuddy, but still having trouble.
(?!Andrea).{6}
Assuming your regexp engine supports negative lookaheads...
...or maybe you'd prefer to use [A-Za-z]{6} in place of .{6}
Note that lookaheads and lookbehinds are generally not the right way to "inverse" a regular expression match. Regexps aren't really set up for doing negative matching; they leave that to whatever language you are using them with.
For Python/Java,
^(.(?!(some text)))*$
http://www.lisnichenko.com/articles/javapython-inverse-regex.html
In PCRE and similar variants, you can actually create a regex that matches any line not containing a value:
^(?:(?!Andrea).)*$
This is called a tempered greedy token. The downside is that it doesn't perform well.
The capabilities and syntax of the regex implementation matter.
You could use look-ahead. Using Python as an example,
import re
not_andrea = re.compile('(?!Andrea)\w{6}', re.IGNORECASE)
To break that down:
(?!Andrea) means 'match if the next 6 characters are not "Andrea"'; if so then
\w means a "word character" - alphanumeric characters. This is equivalent to the class [a-zA-Z0-9_]
\w{6} means exactly six word characters.
re.IGNORECASE means that you will exclude "Andrea", "andrea", "ANDREA" ...
Another way is to use your program logic - use all lines not matching Andrea and put them through a second regex to check for six characters. Or first check for at least six word characters, and then check that it does not match Andrea.
Negative lookahead assertion
(?!Andrea)
This is not exactly an inverted match, but it's the best you can directly do with regex. Not all platforms support them though.
If you want to do this in RegexBuddy, there are two ways to get a list of all lines not matching a regex.
On the toolbar on the Test panel, set the test scope to "Line by line". When you do that, an item List All Lines without Matches will appear under the List All button on the same toolbar. (If you don't see the List All button, click the Match button in the main toolbar.)
On the GREP panel, you can turn on the "line-based" and the "invert results" checkboxes to get a list of non-matching lines in the files you're grepping through.
I just came up with this method which may be hardware intensive but it is working:
You can replace all characters which match the regex by an empty string.
This is a oneliner:
notMatched = re.sub(regex, "", string)
I used this because I was forced to use a very complex regex and couldn't figure out how to invert every part of it within a reasonable amount of time.
This will only return you the string result, not any match objects!
(?! is useful in practice. Although strictly speaking, looking ahead is not a regular expression as defined mathematically.
You can write an inverted regular expression manually.
Here is a program to calculate the result automatically.
Its result is machine generated, which is usually much more complex than hand writing one. But the result works.
If you have the possibility to do two regex matches for the inverse and join them together you can use two capturing groups to first capture everything before your regex
^((?!yourRegex).)*
and then capture everything behind your regex
(?<=yourRegex).*
This works for most regexes. One problem I discovered was when I had a quantifier like {2,4} at the end. Then you gotta get creative.
In Perl you can do:
process($line) if ($line =~ !/Andrea/);