Is is possible to construct a regular expression that rejects all input strings?
Probably this:
[^\w\W]
\w - word character (letter, digit, etc)
\W - opposite of \w
[^\w\W] - should always fail, because any character should belong to one of the character classes - \w or \W
Another snippets:
$.^
$ - assert position at the end of the string
^ - assert position at the start of the line
. - any char
(?#it's just a comment inside of empty regex)
Empty lookahead/behind should work:
(?<!)
The best standard regexs (i.e., no lookahead or back-references) that reject all inputs are (after #aku above)
.^
and
$.
These are flat contradictions: "a string with a character before its beginning" and "a string with a character after its end."
NOTE: It's possible that some regex implementations would reject these patterns as ill-formed (it's pretty easy to check that ^ comes at the beginning of a pattern and $ at the end... with a regular expression), but the few I've checked do accept them. These also won't work in implementations that allow ^ and $ to match newlines.
(?=not)possible
?= is a positive lookahead. They're not supported in all regexp flavors, but in many.
The expression will look for "not", then look for "possible" starting at the same position (since lookaheads don't move forward in the string).
One example of why such thing could possibly be needed is when you want to filter some input with regexes and you pass regex as an argument to a function.
In spirit of functional programming, for algebraic completeness, you may want some trivial primary regexes like "everything is allowed" and "nothing is allowed".
To me it sounds like you're attacking a problem the wrong way, what exactly
are you trying to solve?
You could do a regular expression that catches everything and negate the result.
e.g in javascript:
if (! str.match( /./ ))
but then you could just do
if (!foo)
instead, as #[jan-hani] said.
If you're looking to embed such a regex in another regex, you
might be looking for $ or ^ instead, or use lookaheads like #[henrik-n] mentioned.
But as I said, this looks like a "I think I need x, but what I really need is y" problem.
Why would you even want that? Wouldn't a simple if statment do the trick? Something along the lines of:
if ( inputString != "" )
doSomething ()
[^\x00-\xFF]
It depends on what you mean by "regular expression". Do you mean regexps in a particular programming language or library? In that case the answer is probably yes, and you can refer to any of the above replies.
If you mean the regular expressions as taught in computer science classes, then the answer is no. Every regular expression matches some string. It could be the empty string, but it always matches something.
In any case, I suggest you edit the title of your question to narrow down what kinds of regular expressions you mean.
[^]+ should do it.
In answer to aku's comment attached to this, I tested it with an online regex tester (http://www.regextester.com/), and so assume it works with JavaScript. I have to confess to not testing it in "real" code. ;)
EDIT:
[^\n\r\w\s]
Well,
I am not sure if I understood, since I always thought of regular expression of a way to match strings. I would say the best shot you have is not using regex.
But, you can also use regexp that matches empty lines like ^$ or a regexp that do not match words/spaces like [^\w\s] ...
Hope it helps!
Related
I have a regular expression like this: ('0'|['0'‐'9']+'.'['0'‐'9' 'a'‐'f']*)
In order to test it I am using a handy tool called http://www.regexpal.com/
The thing is that I am getting stuck when trying to understand the logic, inserting a '0' is fine but then I don't get why the OR prevents inserting other characters. Any explanation is appreciated.
I'm not sure you understand how the brackets in the regex are working. It isn't the OR part that is preventing you.
('0'|['0'‐'9']+'.'['0'‐'9' 'a'‐'f']*)
Will match either '0' with the quotes or for example 0000000'z''''9 or anything else like it. The quotes are treated as literal and the period must be escaped because it is a wildcard.
(0|[0-9]+\.[0-9a-f]*)
May be what you are looking for. This will match values such as 0 or 23. or 3.14159
There are numerous problems in your regex (as others have pointed out), but I'll explain something about alternations.
Most regex flavors will short-circuit alternations.
This means that you should reorder it, if you want it to match the other expression first.
I have been solving old question from stack so that I can improve my regex knowledge. As I have a basic knowledge of regex, most of them were easy but this question regex problem is tough.
It asks for a regex that extracts from this kind of string ou=persons,ou=(.*),dc=company,dc=org the last string immediately preceded by a comma not followed by (.*). In the last case, this should give dc=company,dc=org.
The solution is (?<=,(?!.*\Q(.*)\E)).* but I cannot understand its flow. I understood (?!.*\Q(.*)\E) portion but other are still mystery to me. Specially ?<= which is a positive look-behind. Does it search from end of string? Can anyone explain it to me like I am a 7 year old kid — and please http://regex101.com/ is not helping.
The RegEx (?<=,(?!.*\Q(.*)\E)).* look-behind potion works like this:
Start at the beginning of the string at first character.
Can we match the the thing we are looking for? ,(?!.*\Q(.*)\E)
If we can't: Move forward one character, Go To 2. and check match again.
If a match is found: Capture all the remaining characters until we can't find any .* (or generally then try the matching the remaining RegEx).
For a more wordly explaination consider reading Lookahead and Lookbehind Zero-Length Assertions.
A lookbehind allows you to specify a context just before the actual match.
You can say ,(dc=) and only return the capture group, or ,\Kdc=, or (?<=,)dc= to return the match on dc= but require that the comma is present just before the match.
The facility also allows for multiple lookbehinds, so you could do (?<=a.*)(?<=b.*)c to match c only if it is preceded by both a and b somewhere in the input.
A lookbehind is basically syntactic sugar, in that you can usually rephrase your conditions using some other regex construct. It can be really handy when you have multiple unanchored constraints, like in the last example
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?
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?)