Looking for a bit of regex help.
I'd like to design an expression that matches a string with "foo" OR "bar", but not both "foo" AND "bar"
If I do something like...
/((foo)|(bar))/
It'll match "foobar". Not what I'm looking for. So, how can I make regex match only when one term or the other is present?
Thanks!
This is what I use:
/^(foo|bar){1}$/
See: http://www.regular-expressions.info/quickstart.html under repetition
If your regex language supports it, use negative lookaround:
(?<!foo|bar)(foo|bar)(?!foo|bar)
This will match "foo" or "bar" that is not immediately preceded or followed by "foo" or "bar", which I think is what you wanted.
It's not clear from your question or examples if the string you're trying to match can contain other tokens: "foocuzbar". If so, this pattern won't work.
Here are the results of your test cases ("true" means the pattern was found in the input):
foo: true
bar: true
foofoo: false
barfoo: false
foobarfoo: false
barbar: false
barfoofoo: false
You can do this with a single regex but I suggest for the sake of readability you do something like...
(/foo/ and not /bar/) || (/bar/ and not /foo/)
This will take 'foo' and 'bar' but not 'foobar' and not 'blafoo' and not 'blabar':
/^(foo|bar)$/
^ = mark start of string (or line)
$ = mark end of string (or line)
This will take 'foo' and 'bar' and 'foo bar' and 'bar-foo' but not 'foobar' and not 'blafoo' and not 'blabar':
/\b(foo|bar)\b/
\b = mark word boundry
You haven't specified behaviour regarding content other than "foo" and "bar" or repetitions of one in the absence of the other. e.g., Should "food" or "barbarian" match?
Assuming that you want to match strings which contain only one instance of either "foo" or "bar", but not both and not multiple instances of the same one, without regard for anything else in the string (i.e., "food" matches and "barbarian" does not match), then you could use a regex which returns the number of matches found and only consider it successful if exactly one match is found. e.g., in Perl:
#matches = ($value =~ /(foo|bar)/g) # #matches now hold all foos or bars present
if (scalar #matches == 1) { # exactly one match found
...
}
If multiple repetitions of that same target are allowed (i.e., "barbarian" matches), then this same general approach could be used by then walking the list of matches to see whether the matches are all repeats of the same text or if the other option is also present.
You might want to consider the ? conditional test.
(?(?=regex)then|else)
Regular Expression Conditionals
If you want a true exclusive or, I'd just do that in code instead of in the regex. In Perl:
/foo/ xor /bar/
But your comment:
Matches: "foo", "bar" nonmatches:
"foofoo" "barfoo" "foobarfoo" "barbar"
"barfoofoo"
indicates that you're not really looking for exclusive or. You actually mean
"Does /foo|bar/ match exactly once?"
my $matches = 0;
while (/foo|bar/g) {
last if ++$matches > 1;
}
my $ok = ($matches == 1)
I know this is a late entry, but just to help others who may be looking:
(/b(?:(?:(?!foo)bar)|(?:(?!bar)foo))/b)
I'd use something like this. It just checks for space around the words, but you could use the \b or \B to check for a border if you use \w. This would match " foo " or " bar ", so obviously you'd have to replace the whitespace as well, just in case. (Assuming you're replacing anything.)
/\s((foo)|(bar))\s/
I don't think this can be done with a single regular expression. And boundaries may or may not work depending on what you're matching against.
I would match against each regex separately, and do an XOR on the results.
foo = re.search("foo", str) != None
bar = re.search("bar", str) != None
if foo ^ bar:
# do someting...
I tried with Regex Coach against:
x foo y
x bar y
x foobar y
If I check the g option, indeed it matches all three words, because it searches again after each match.
If you don't want this behavior, you can anchor the expression, for example matching only on word boundaries:
\b(foo|bar)\b
Giving more context on the problem (what the data looks like) might give better answers.
\b(foo)\b|\b(bar)\b
And use only the first capture group.
Using the word boundaries, you can get the single word...
me#home ~
$ echo "Where is my bar of soap?" | egrep "\bfoo\b|\bbar\b"
Where is my bar of soap?
me#home ~
$ echo "What the foo happened here?" | egrep "\bfoo\b|\bbar\b"
What the foo happened here?
me#home ~
$ echo "Boy, that sure is foobar\!" | egrep "\bfoo\b|\bbar\b"
Related
I'm having difficulty writing a Perl program to extract the word following a certain word.
For example:
Today i'm not going anywhere except to office.
I want the word after anywhere, so the output should be except.
I have tried this
my $words = "Today i'm not going anywhere except to office.";
my $w_after = ( $words =~ /anywhere (\S+)/ );
but it seems this is wrong.
Very close:
my ($w_after) = ($words =~ /anywhere\s+(\S+)/);
^ ^ ^^^
+--------+ |
Note 1 Note 2
Note 1: =~ returns a list of captured items, so the assignment target needs to be a list.
Note 2: allow one or more blanks after anywhere
In Perl v5.22 and later, you can use \b{wb} to get better results for natural language. The pattern could be
/anywhere\b{wb}.+?\b{wb}(.+?\b{wb})/
"wb" stands for word break, and it will account for words that have apostrophes in them, like "I'll", that plain \b doesn't.
.+?\b{wb}
matches the shortest non-empty sequence of characters that don't have a word break in them. The first one matches the span of spaces in your sentence; and the second one matches "except". It is enclosed in parentheses, so upon completion $1 contains "except".
\b{wb} is documented most fully in perlrebackslash
First, you have to write parentheses around left side expression of = operator to force array context for regexp evaluation. See m// and // in perlop documentation.[1] You can write
parentheses also around =~ binding operator to improve readability but it is not necessary because =~ has pretty high priority.
Use POSIX Character Classes word
my ($w_after) = ($words =~ / \b anywhere \W+ (\w+) \b /x);
Note I'm using x so whitespaces in regexp are ignored. Also use \b word boundary to anchor regexp correctly.
[1]: I write my ($w_after) just for convenience because you can write my ($a, $b, $c, #rest) as equivalent of (my $a, my $b, my $c, my #rest) but you can also control scope of your variables like (my $a, our $UGLY_GLOBAL, local $_, #_).
This Regex to be matched:
my ($expect) = ($words=~m/anywhere\s+([^\s]+)\s+/);
^\s+ the word between two spaces
Thanks.
If you want to also take into consideration the punctuation marks, like in:
my $words = "Today i'm not going anywhere; except to office.";
Then try this:
my ($w_after) = ($words =~ /anywhere[[:punct:]|\s]+(\S+)/);
I am not able to understand the practical difference between ? and * in regular expressions. I know that ? means to check if previous character/group is present 0 or 1 times and * means to check if the previous character/group is present 0 or more times.
But this code
while(<>) {
chomp($_);
if(/hello?/) {
print "metch $_ \n";
}
else {
print "naot metch $_ \n";
}
}
gives the same out put for both hello? and hello*. The external file that is given to this Perl program contains
hello
helloooo
hell
And the output is
metch hello
metch helloooo
metch hell
for both hello? and hello*. I am not able to understand the exact difference between ? and *
In Perl (and unlike Java), the m//-match operator is not anchored by default.
As such all of the input it trivially matched by both /hello?/ and /hello*/. That is, these will match any string that contains "hell" (as both quantifiers make the "o" optional) anywhere.
Compare with /^hello?$/ and /^hello*$/, respectively. Since these employ anchors the former will not match "helloo" (as at most one "o" is allowed) while the latter will.
Under Regexp Quote-like Operators:
m/PATTERN/ searches [anywhere in] a string for a pattern match, and in scalar context returns true if it succeeds, false if it fails.
What is confusing you is that, without anchors like ^ and $ a regex pattern match checks only whether the pattern appears anywhere in the target string.
If you add something to the pattern after the hello, like
if (/hello?, Ashwin/) { ... }
Then the strings
hello, Ashwin
and
hell, Ashwin
will match, but
helloooo, Ashwin
will not, because there are too many o characters between hell and the comma ,.
However, if you use a star * instead, like
if (/hello*, Ashwin/) { ... }
then all three strings will match.
? Means the last item is optional. * Means it is both optional and you can have multiple items.
ie.
hello? matches hell, hello
hello* matches hell, hello, helloo, hellooo, ....
But not using either ^ or $ means these matches can occur anywhere in the string
Here's an example I came up with that makes it quite clear:
What if you wanted to only match up to tens of people and your data was like below:
2 people. 20 people. 200 people. 2000 people.
Only ? would be useful in that case, whereas * would incorrectly capture larger numbers.
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 am looking to do a 2-step regular expression look-up in Perl, I have text that looks like this:
here is some text 9337 more text AA 2214 and some 1190 more BB stuff 8790 words
I also have a hash with the following values:
%my_hash = ( 9337 => 'AA', 2214 => 'BB', 8790 => 'CC' );
Here's what I need to do:
Find a number
Look up the text code for the number using my_hash
Check if the text code appears within 50 characters of the identified number, and if true print the result
So the output I'm looking for is:
Found 9337, matches 'AA'
Found 2214, matches 'BB'
Found 1190, no matches
Found 8790, no matches
Here's what I have so far:
while ( $text =~ /(\d+)(.{1,50})/g ) {
$num = $1;
$text_after_num = $2;
$search_for = $my_hash{$num};
if ( $text_after_num =~ /($search_for)/ ) {
print "Found $num, matches $search_for\n";
}
else {
print "Found $num, no matches\n";
}
This sort of works, except that the only correct match is 9337; the code doesn't match 2214. I think the reason is that the regular expression match on 9337 is including 50 characters after the number for the second-step match, and then when the regex engine starts again it is starting from a point after the 2214. Is there an easy way to fix this? I think the \G modifier can help me here, but I don't quite see how.
Any suggestions or help would be great.
You have a problem with greediness. The 1,50 will consume as much as it can. Your regex should be /(\d+)(.+?)(?=($|\d))/
To explain, the question mark will make the multiple match non-greedy (it will stop as soon as the next pattern is matched - the next pattern gets precedence). The ?= is a lookahead operator to say "check if the next element is a digit. If so, match but do not consume." This allows the first digit to get picked up by the beginning of the regex and be put into the next matched pattern.
[EDIT]
I added an optional end value to the lookahead so that it wouldn't die on the last match.
Just use :
/\b\d+\b/g
Why match everything if you don't need to? You should use other functions to determine where the number is :
/(?=9337.{1,50}AA)/
This will fail if AA is further than 50 chars away from the end of 9337. Of course you will have to interpolate your variables to match your hashe's keys and values. This was just an example for your first key/value pair.