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?)
Related
Specifically, I want to match functions in my Javascript code that are not in a set of common standard Javascript functions. In other words, I want to match user defined functions. I'm working with vim's flavour of regexp, but I don't mind seeing solutions for other flavours.
As I understand it, regexp crawls through a string character by character, so thinking in terms of sets of characters can be problematic even when a problem seems simple. I've tried negative lookahead, and as you might expect all the does is prevent the first character of the functions I don't want from being matched (ie, onsole.log instead of console.log).
(?(?!(if)|(console\.log)|(function))\w+)\(.*\)
function(meep, boop, doo,do)
JSON.parse(localStorage["beards"])
console.log("sldkfjls" + dododo);
if (beepboop) {
BLAH.blah.somefunc(arge, arg,arg);
https://regexr.com/
I would like to be able to crawl through a function and see where it is calling other usermade functions. Will I need to do post-processing (ie mapping with another regexp) on the matches to reject matches I don't want, or is there a way to do this in one regexp?
The basic recipe for a regular expression that matches all words except foo (in Vim's regular expression syntax) is:
/\<\%(foo\>\)\#!\k\+\>/
Note how the negative lookahead (\#!) needs an end assertion (here: \>) on its own, to avoid that it also excludes anything that just starts with the expression!
Applied to your examples (excluding if (potentially with whitespace), console.log, and function, ending with (), that gives:
\<\%(\%(if *\|console\.log\|function\)(\)\#!\(\k\|\.\)\+\>(.*)
As you seem to want to include the entire object chain (so JSON.parse instead of just parse), the actual match includes both keyword characters (\k) and the period. There's one complication with that: The negative lookahead will latch onto the log() in console.log(), because the leading keyword boundary assertion (\<) matches there as well. We can disallow that match by also excluding a period just before the function; i.e. by placing \.\#<! in between:
\<\%(\%(if *\|console\.log\|function\)(\)\#!\.\#<!\(\k\|\.\)\+\>(.*)
That will highlight just the following calls:
JSON.parse(localStorage["beards"])
BLAH.blah.somefunc(arge, arg,arg);
foo.log(asdf)
Given the following sample input text:
{{A1|def|ghi|jkl}}hello world. {{A2|mno}}bye world.
How can I create a regex pattern to only matching the first instance of {{ ... }} (i.e. only {{A1|def|ghi|jkl}}). A1 and A2 are fixed inputs and def, ghi, jkl, and mno could be anything.
I've tried this:
\{\{A1\|(.*)\|(.*)\|(.*)\}\}
But that returns everything ({{A1|def|ghi|jkl}}hello world. {{A2|mno}}).
Note that def or ghi or jkl or mno could be numbers, English letters or other languages (e.g. Chinese/Japanese/Korean).
It's a little unclear what you are trying to accomplish. At first, I thought that your problem was just that you were getting the entire thing when all you really wanted was the A1 or A2 part. If so, here's the answer:
Since you didn't specify which flavor of regex you are using, it's hard to say for sure. If you are using a version which supports look-arounds, you could do something like this:
(?<={{)\w+(?=(\|[^|}]*)+}})
Here's the meaning of the pattern:
(?<={{) - This is a positive look-behind expression which means that it asserts that any match must be preceded by certain characters. In this case, the characters are {{.
\w+ - This is the actual part that we are matching. In this case, it's one or more word characters. \w is a special character class. This varies, though, depending on which regex engine you are using. Something like [A-Z][0-9] may be more appropriate, depending on your needs.
(?=(\|[^|}]*)+}}) - This is a positive look-ahead expression. That means that it asserts that any match must be followed by some particular pattern of characters. In this case, it's looking for matches to be followed by (\|[^|}]*)+}}.
However, if look-arounds are not possible, then you can match it with a capturing group, like this:
{{(\w+)(\|[^|}]*)+}}
If you do it that way, you'll need to read the value of the first group for each match.
As far as only finding the first match goes, that really depends on which tool or language you are using. Most regex engines only find the first match by default and only find additional matches when a global modifier is specified (often /g at the end).
However, now, after having edited your question, and trying better to understand what you meant, I think that your real problem is greediness. The repetitions, such as *, in regex are greedy by default. That means they will capture as much text as they possibly can and still have it match. In this case, you don't want it to find the longest possible match. In this case, you want it to find the shortest possible match. You could do that simply by making the repetitions lazy (i.e. non-greedy). To do that, simply add a ? after the *. For instance:
\{\{A1\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\}\}
However, that's not very efficient. If this pattern is going to be used often or on large inputs it would be better to use a more restrictive character class, such as [^}|] instead of ., so that the lazy modifier is unnecessary. For example:
\{\{A1\|([^}|]*)\|([^}|]*)\|([^}|]*)\}\}
Or, more simply:
{{A1(\|([^}|]*)){3}}}
The problem with your pattern is simply that you've made all of the * quantifiers greedy. They're matching as much of the string as they can (while still allowing the whole pattern to match). Just make them non-greedy *?:
\{\{A1\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\}\}
https://regex101.com/r/pK4gE7/1
I am experiencing a strange behaviour when searching for a regular expression in vim:
I attempt to clean up superfluous whitespace in a file and want to use the substitute command for it.
When I use the following regular expression with collections, vim matches single whitespaces as well:
\%[\s]\{2,}
When I use the same regular expression with patterns instead of collections vim correctly matches only 2 or more whitespaces:
\%(\s\)\{2,}
I know that I do not need to use a collection, but if I try the expression in a online regular expression parser (e.g. Rubular) it works with a collection as well.
Can anyone explain why these expression are not evaluated in the same way?
Because \%[...] and \%(...\) are completely different patterns.
\%[...] means a sequence of optional atoms.
For example, r\%[ead] matches "read", "rea", "re" and "r".
While \%(...\) treats the enclosed atoms as a single atom.
For example, r\%(ead\) matches only "read".
So that,
\%[\s]\{2,} can be interpreted as \(\s\|\)\{2,}, then \(\s\|\)\(\s\|\)\|\(\s\|\)\(\s\|\)\(\s\|\)\|....
Here \(\s\|\)\(\s\|\), the minimum pattern, can be interpreted as \(\)\(\), \(\)\(\s\), \(\s\)\(\) or \(\s\)\(\s\).
It matches 1 whitespace character too.
\%(\s\)\{2,} can be interpreted as \s\{2,}, then \s\s\|\s\s\s\|....
It matches only 2 or more whitespace characters.
does this answer your question?
http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/pattern.html#/\%[]
A sequence of optionally matched atoms. This always matches.
It matches as much of the list of atoms it contains as possible.
Thus it stops at the first atom that doesnt match.
For example:
/r\%[ead]
matches "r", "re", "rea" or "read". The longest that matches is used.
The problem is it always match and override the quantifier {2,} at the back.
it is rarely used, but interesting nevertheless.
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.
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?