I'm looking for a regular expression that allows for either single-quoted or double-quoted strings, and allows the opposite quote character within the string. For example, the following would both be legal strings:
"hello 'there' world"
'hello "there" world'
The regexp I'm using uses negative lookahead and is as follows:
(['"])(?:(?!\1).)*\1
This would work I think, but what about if the language didn't support negative lookahead. Is there any other way to do this? Without alternation?
EDIT:
I know I can use alternation. This was more of just a hypothetical question. Say I had 20 different characters in the initial character class. I wouldn't want to write out 20 different alternations. I'm trying to actually negate the captured character, without using lookahead, lookbehind, or alternation.
This is actually much simpler than you may have realized. You don't really need the negative look-ahead. What you want to do is a non-greedy (or lazy) match like this:
(['"]).*?\1
The ? character after the .* is the important part. It says, consume the minimum possible characters before hitting the next part of the regex. So, you get either kind of quote, and then you go after 0-M characters until you encounter a character matching whichever quote you first ran into. You can learn more about greedy matching vs. non-greedy here and here.
Sure:
'([^']*)'|"([^"]*)"
On a successful match, the $+ variable will hold the contents of whichever alternate matched.
In the general case, regexps are not really the answer. You might be interested in something like Text::ParseWords, which tokenizes text, accounting for nested quotes, backslashed quotes, backslashed spaces, and other oddities.
Related
I've just learned about these two concepts in more detail. I've always been good with RegEx, and it seems I've never seen the need for these 2 zero width assertions.
I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, but I do not see why these constructs are needed. Consider this example:
Match a 'q' which is not followed by a 'u'.
2 strings will be the input:
Iraq
quit
With negative lookahead, the regex looks like this:
q(?!u)
Without it, it looks like this:
q[^u]
For the given input, both of these regex give the same results (i.e. matching Iraq but not quit) (tested with perl). The same idea applies to lookbehinds.
Am I missing a crucial feature that makes these assertions more valuable than the classic syntax?
Why your test probably worked (and why it shouldn't)
The reason you were able to match Iraq in your test might be that your string contained a \n at the end (for instance, if you read it from the shell). If you have a string that ends in q, then q[^u] cannot match it as the others said, because [^u] matches a non-u character - but the point is there has to be a character.
What do we actually need lookarounds for?
Obviously in the above case, lookaheads are not vital. You could workaround this by using q(?:[^u]|$). So we match only if q is followed by a non-u character or the end of the string. There are much more sophisticated uses for lookaheads though, which become a pain if you do them without lookaheads.
This answer tries to give an overview of some important standard situations which are best solved with lookarounds.
Let's start with looking at quoted strings. The usual way to match them is with something like "[^"]*" (not with ".*?"). After the opening ", we simply repeat as many non-quote characters as possible and then match the closing quote. Again, a negated character class is perfectly fine. But there are cases, where a negated character class doesn't cut it:
Multi-character delimiters
Now what if we don't have double-quotes to delimit our substring of interest, but a multi-character delimiter. For instance, we are looking for ---sometext---, where single and double - are allowed within sometext. Now you can't just use [^-]*, because that would forbid single -. The standard technique is to use a negative lookahead at every position, and only consume the next character, if it is not the beginning of ---. Like so:
---(?:(?!---).)*---
This might look a bit complicated if you haven't seen it before, but it's certainly nicer (and usually more efficient) than the alternatives.
Different delimiters
You get a similar case, where your delimiter is only one character but could be one of two (or more) different characters. For instance, say in our initial example, we want to allow for both single- and double-quoted strings. Of course, you could use '[^']*'|"[^"]*", but it would be nice to treat both cases without an alternative. The surrounding quotes can easily be taken care of with a backreference: (['"])[^'"]*\1. This makes sure that the match ends with the same character it began with. But now we're too restrictive - we'd like to allow " in single-quoted and ' in double-quoted strings. Something like [^\1] doesn't work, because a backreference will in general contain more than one character. So we use the same technique as above:
(['"])(?:(?!\1).)*\1
That is after the opening quote, before consuming each character we make sure that it is not the same as the opening character. We do that as long as possible, and then match the opening character again.
Overlapping matches
This is a (completely different) problem that can usually not be solved at all without lookarounds. If you search for a match globally (or want to regex-replace something globally), you may have noticed that matches can never overlap. I.e. if you search for ... in abcdefghi you get abc, def, ghi and not bcd, cde and so on. This can be problem if you want to make sure that your match is preceded (or surrounded) by something else.
Say you have a CSV file like
aaa,111,bbb,222,333,ccc
and you want to extract only fields that are entirely numerical. For simplicity, I'll assume that there is no leading or trailing whitespace anywhere. Without lookarounds, we might go with capturing and try:
(?:^|,)(\d+)(?:,|$)
So we make sure that we have the start of a field (start of string or ,), then only digits, and then the end of a field (, or end of string). Between that we capture the digits into group 1. Unfortunately, this will not give us 333 in the above example, because the , that precedes it was already part of the match ,222, - and matches cannot overlap. Lookarounds solve the problem:
(?<=^|,)\d+(?=,|$)
Or if you prefer double negation over alternation, this is equivalent to
(?<![^,])\d+(?![^,])
In addition to being able to get all matches, we get rid of the capturing which can generally improve performance. (Thanks to Adrian Pronk for this example.)
Multiple independent conditions
Another very classic example of when to use lookarounds (in particular lookaheads) is when we want to check multiple conditions on an input at the same time. Say we want to write a single regex that makes sure our input contains a digit, a lower case letter, an upper case letter, a character that is none of those, and no whitespace (say, for password security). Without lookarounds you'd have to consider all permutations of digit, lower case/upper case letter, and symbol. Like:
\S*\d\S*[a-z]\S*[A-Z]\S*[^0-9a-zA_Z]\S*|\S*\d\S*[A-Z]\S*[a-z]\S*[^0-9a-zA_Z]\S*|...
Those are only two of the 24 necessary permutations. If you also want to ensure a minimum string length in the same regex, you'd have to distribute those in all possible combinations of the \S* - it simply becomes impossible to do in a single regex.
Lookahead to the rescue! We can simply use several lookaheads at the beginning of the string to check all of these conditions:
^(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[^0-9a-zA-Z])(?!.*\s)
Because the lookaheads don't actually consume anything, after checking each condition the engine resets to the beginning of the string and can start looking at the next one. If we wanted to add a minimum string length (say 8), we could simply append (?=.{8}). Much simpler, much more readable, much more maintainable.
Important note: This is not the best general approach to check these conditions in any real setting. If you are making the check programmatically, it's usually better to have one regex for each condition, and check them separately - this let's you return a much more useful error message. However, the above is sometimes necessary, if you have some fixed framework that lets you do validation only by supplying a single regex. In addition, it's worth knowing the general technique, if you ever have independent criteria for a string to match.
I hope these examples give you a better idea of why people would like to use lookarounds. There are a lot more applications (another classic is inserting commas into numbers), but it's important that you realise that there is a difference between (?!u) and [^u] and that there are cases where negated character classes are not powerful enough at all.
q[^u] will not match "Iraq" because it will look for another symbol.
q(?!u) however, will match "Iraq":
regex = /q[^u]/
/q[^u]/
regex.test("Iraq")
false
regex.test("Iraqf")
true
regex = /q(?!u)/
/q(?!u)/
regex.test("Iraq")
true
Well, another thing along with what others mentioned with the negative lookahead, you can match consecutive characters (e.g. you can negate ui while with [^...], you cannot negate ui but either u or i and if you try [^ui]{2}, you will also negate uu, ii and iu.
The whole point is to not "consume" the next character(s), so that it can be e.g. captured by another expression that comes afterwards.
If they're the last expression in the regex, then what you've shown are equivalent.
But e.g. q(?!u)([a-z]) would let the non-u character be part of the next group.
I know it is quite some weird goal here but for a quick and dirty fix for one of our system we do need to not filter any input and let the corruption go into the system.
My current regex for this is "\^.*"
The problem with that is that it does not match characters as planned ... but for one match it does work. The string that make it not work is ^#jj (basically anything that has ^ ... ).
What would be the best way to not match any characters now ? I was thinking of removing the \ but only doing this will transform the "not" into a "start with" ...
The ^ character doesn't mean "not" except inside a character class ([]). If you want to not match anything, you could use a negative lookahead that matches anything: (?!.*).
A simple and cheap regex that will never match anything is to match against something that is simply unmatchable, for example: \b\B.
It's simply impossible for this regex to match, since it's a contradiction.
References
regular-expressions.info\Word Boundaries
\B is the negated version of \b. \B matches at every position where \b does not.
Another very well supported and fast pattern that would fail to match anything that is guaranteed to be constant time:
$unmatchable pattern $anything goes here etc.
$ of course indicates the end-of-line. No characters could possibly go after $ so no further state transitions could possibly be made. The additional advantage are that your pattern is intuitive, self-descriptive and readable as well!
tldr; The most portable and efficient regex to never match anything is $- (end of line followed by a char)
Impossible regex
The most reliable solution is to create an impossible regex. There are many impossible regexes but not all are as good.
First you want to avoid "lookahead" solutions because some regex engines don't support it.
Then you want to make sure your "impossible regex" is efficient and won't take too much computation steps to match... nothing.
I found that $- has a constant computation time ( O(1) ) and only takes two steps to compute regardless of the size of your text (https://regex101.com/r/yjcs1Z/3).
For comparison:
$^ and $. both take 36 steps to compute -> O(1)
\b\B takes 1507 steps on my sample and increase with the number of character in your string -> O(n)
Empty regex (alternative solution)
If your regex engine accepts it, the best and simplest regex to never match anything might be: an empty regex .
Instead of trying to not match any characters, why not just match all characters? ^.*$ should do the trick. If you have to not match any characters then try ^\j$ (Assuming of course, that your regular expression engine will not throw an error when you provide it an invalid character class. If it does, try ^()$. A quick test with RegexBuddy suggests that this might work.
^ is only not when it's in class (such as [^a-z] meaning anything but a-z). You've turned it into a literal ^ with the backslash.
What you're trying to do is [^]*, but that's not legal. You could try something like
" {10000}"
which would match exactly 10,000 spaces, if that's longer than your maximum input, it should never be matched.
((?iLmsux))
Try this, it matches only if the string is empty.
Interesting ... the most obvious and simple variant:
~^
.
https://regex101.com/r/KhTM1i/1
requiring usually only one computation step (failing directly at the start and being computational expensive only if the matched string begins with a long series of ~) is not mentioned among all the other answers ... for 12 years.
You want to match nothing at all? Neg lookarounds seems obvious, but can be slow, perhaps ^$ (matches empty string only) as an alternative?
I need to match a colon (':') in a string, but not when it's enclosed by quotes - either a " or ' character.
So the following should have 2 matches
something:'firstValue':'secondValue'
something:"firstValue":'secondValue'
but this should only have 1 match
something:'no:match'
If the regular expression implementation supports look-around assertions, try this:
:(?:(?<=["']:)|(?=["']))
This will match any colon that is either preceeded or followed by a double or single quote. So that does only consider construct like you mentioned. something:firstValue would not be matched.
It would be better if you build a little parser that reads the input byte-by-byte and remembers when quotation is open.
Regular expressions are stateless. Tracking whether you are inside of quotes or not is state information. It is, therefore, impossible to handle this correctly using only a single regular expression. (Note that some "regular expression" implementations add extensions which may make this possible; I'm talking solely about "true" regular expressions here.)
Doing it with two regular expressions is possible, though, provided that you're willing to modify the original string or to work with a copy of it. In Perl:
$string =~ s/['"][^'"]*['"]//g;
my $match_count = $string =~ /:/g;
The first will find every sequence consisting of a quote, followed by any number of non-quote characters, and terminated by a second quote, and remove all such sequences from the string. This will eliminate any colons which are within quotes. (something:"firstValue":'secondValue' becomes something:: and something:'no:match' becomes something:)
The second does a simple count of the remaining colons, which will be those that weren't within quotes to start with.
Just counting the non-quoted colons doesn't seem like a particularly useful thing to do in most cases, though, so I suspect that your real goal is to split the string up into fields with colons as the field delimiter, in which case this regex-based solution is unsuitable, as it will destroy any data in quoted fields. In that case, you need to use a real parser (most CSV parsers allow you to specify the delimiter and would be ideal for this) or, in the worst case, walk through the string character-by-character and split it manually.
If you tell us the language you're using, I'm sure somebody could suggest a good parser library for that language.
Uppps ... missed the point. Forget the rest. It's quite hard to do this because regex is not good at counting balanced characters (but the .NET implementation for example has an extension that can do it, but it's a bit complicated).
You can use negated character groups to do this.
[^'"]:[^'"]
You can further wrap the quotes in non-capturing groups.
(?:[^'"]):(?:[^'"])
Or you can use assertion.
(?<!['"]):(?!['"])
I've come up with the following slightly worrying construction:
(?<=^('[^']*')*("[^"]*")*[^'"]*):
It uses a lookbehind assertion to make sure you match an even number of quotes from the beginning of the line to the current colon. It allows for embedding a single quote inside double quotes and vice versa. As in:
'a":b':c::"':" (matches at positions 6, 8 and 9)
EDIT
Gumbo is right, using * within a look behind assertion is not allowed.
You can try to catch the strings withing the quotes
/(?<q>'|")([\w ]+)(\k<q>)/m
First pattern defines the allowed quote types, second pattern takes all Word-Digits and spaces.
Very good on this solution is, it takes ONLY Strings where opening and closing quotes match.
Try it at regex101.com
If I'm trying to match a quote-delimited string with a regex, which of the following is "better" (where "better" means both more efficient and less likely to do something unexpected):
/"[^"]+"/ # match quote, then everything that's not a quote, then a quote
or
/".+?"/ # match quote, then *anything* (non-greedy), then a quote
Assume for this question that empty strings (i.e. "") are not an issue. It seems to me (no regex newbie, but certainly no expert) that these will be equivalent.
Update: Upon reflection, I think changing the + characters to * will handle empty strings correctly anyway.
You should use number one, because number two is bad practice. Consider that the developer who comes after you wants to match strings that are followed by an exclamation point. Should he use:
"[^"]*"!
or:
".*?"!
The difference appears when you have the subject:
"one" "two"!
The first regex matches:
"two"!
while the second regex matches:
"one" "two"!
Always be as specific as you can. Use the negated character class when you can.
Another difference is that [^"]* can span across lines, while .* doesn't unless you use single line mode. [^"\n]* excludes the line breaks too.
As for backtracking, the second regex backtracks for each and every character in every string that it matches. If the closing quote is missing, both regexes will backtrack through the entire file. Only the order in which then backtrack is different. Thus, in theory, the first regex is faster. In practice, you won't notice the difference.
More complicated, but it handles escaped quotes and also escaped backslashes (escaped backslashes followed by a quote is not a problem)
/(["'])((\\{2})*|(.*?[^\\](\\{2})*))\1/
Examples:
"hello\"world" matches "hello\"world"
"hello\\"world" matches "hello\\"
I would suggest:
([\"'])(?:\\\1|.)*?\1
But only because it handles escaped quote chars and allows both the ' and " to be the quote char. I would also suggest looking at this article that goes into this problem in depth:
http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/match-quoted-string
However, unless you have a serious performance issue or cannot be sure of embedded quotes, go with the simpler and more readable:
/".*?"/
I must admit that non-greedy patterns are not the basic Unix-style 'ed' regular expression, but they are getting pretty common. I still am not used to group operators like (?:stuff).
I'd say the second one is better, because it fails faster when the terminating " is missing. The first one will backtrack over the string, a potentially expensive operation. An alternative regexp if you are using perl 5.10 would be /"[^"]++"/. It conveys the same meaning as version 1 does, but is as fast as version two.
I'd go for number two since it's much easier to read. But I'd still like to match empty strings so I would use:
/".*?"/
From a performance perspective (extremely heavy, long-running loop over long strings), I could imagine that
"[^"]*"
is faster than
".*?"
because the latter would do an additional check for each step: peeking at the next character. The former would be able to mindlessly roll over the string.
As I said, in real-world scenarios this would hardly be noticeable. Therefore I would go with number two (if my current regex flavor supports it, that is) because it is much more readable. Otherwise with number one, of course.
Using the negated character class prevents matching when the boundary character (doublequotes, in your example) is present elsewhere in the input.
Your example #1:
/"[^"]+"/ # match quote, then everything that's not a quote, then a quote
matches only the smallest pair of matched quotes -- excellent, and most of the time that's all you'll need. However, if you have nested quotes, and you're interested in the largest pair of matched quotes (or in all the matched quotes), you're in a much more complicated situation.
Luckily Damian Conway is ready with the rescue: Text::Balanced is there for you, if you find that there are multiple matched quote marks. It also has the virtue of matching other paired punctuation, e.g. parentheses.
I prefer the first regex, but it's certainly a matter of taste.
The first one might be more efficient?
Search for double-quote
add double-quote to group
for each char:
if double-quote:
break
add to group
add double-quote to group
Vs something a bit more complicated involving back-tracking?
Considering that I didn't even know about the "*?" thing until today, and I've been using regular expressions for 20+ years, I'd vote in favour of the first. It certainly makes it clear what you're trying to do - you're trying to match a string that doesn't include quotes.
Is it possible to write a regex that returns the converse of a desired result? Regexes are usually inclusive - finding matches. I want to be able to transform a regex into its opposite - asserting that there are no matches. Is this possible? If so, how?
http://zijab.blogspot.com/2008/09/finding-opposite-of-regular-expression.html states that you should bracket your regex with
/^((?!^ MYREGEX ).)*$/
, but this doesn't seem to work. If I have regex
/[a|b]./
, the string "abc" returns false with both my regex and the converse suggested by zijab,
/^((?!^[a|b].).)*$/
. Is it possible to write a regex's converse, or am I thinking incorrectly?
Couldn't you just check to see if there are no matches? I don't know what language you are using, but how about this pseudocode?
if (!'Some String'.match(someRegularExpression))
// do something...
If you can only change the regex, then the one you got from your link should work:
/^((?!REGULAR_EXPRESSION_HERE).)*$/
The reason your inverted regex isn't working is because of the '^' inside the negative lookahead:
/^((?!^[ab].).)*$/
^ # WRONG
Maybe it's different in vim, but in every regex flavor I'm familiar with, the caret matches the beginning of the string (or the beginning of a line in multiline mode). But I think that was just a typo in the blog entry.
You also need to take into account the semantics of the regex tool you're using. For example, in Perl, this is true:
"abc" =~ /[ab]./
But in Java, this isn't:
"abc".matches("[ab].")
That's because the regex passed to the matches() method is implicitly anchored at both ends (i.e., /^[ab].$/).
Taking the more common, Perl semantics, /[ab]./ means the target string contains a sequence consisting of an 'a' or 'b' followed by at least one (non-line separator) character. In other words, at ANY point, the condition is TRUE. The inverse of that statement is, at EVERY point the condition is FALSE. That means, before you consume each character, you perform a negative lookahead to confirm that the character isn't the beginning of a matching sequence:
(?![ab].).
And you have to examine every character, so the regex has to be anchored at both ends:
/^(?:(?![ab].).)*$/
That's the general idea, but I don't think it's possible to invert every regex--not when the original regexes can include positive and negative lookarounds, reluctant and possessive quantifiers, and who-knows-what.
You can invert the character set by writing a ^ at the start ([^…]). So the opposite expression of [ab] (match either a or b) is [^ab] (match neither a nor b).
But the more complex your expression gets, the more complex is the complementary expression too. An example:
You want to match the literal foo. An expression, that does match anything else but a string that contains foo would have to match either
any string that’s shorter than foo (^.{0,2}$), or
any three characters long string that’s not foo (^([^f]..|f[^o].|fo[^o])$), or
any longer string that does not contain foo.
All together this may work:
^[^fo]*(f+($|[^o]|o($|[^fo]*)))*$
But note: This does only apply to foo.
You can also do this (in python) by using re.split, and splitting based on your regular expression, thus returning all the parts that don't match the regex, how to find the converse of a regex
In perl you can anti-match with $string !~ /regex/;.
With grep, you can use --invert-match or -v.
Java Regexps have an interesting way of doing this (can test here) where you can create a greedy optional match for the string you want, and then match data after it. If the greedy match fails, it's optional so it doesn't matter, if it succeeds, it needs some extra data to match the second expression and so fails.
It looks counter-intuitive, but works.
Eg (foo)?+.+ matches bar, foox and xfoo but won't match foo (or an empty string).
It might be possible in other dialects, but couldn't get it to work myself (they seem more willing to backtrack if the second match fails?)