I know it's possible to match a word and then reverse the matches using other tools (e.g. grep -v). However, is it possible to match lines that do not contain a specific word, e.g. hede, using a regular expression?
Input:
hoho
hihi
haha
hede
Code:
grep "<Regex for 'doesn't contain hede'>" input
Desired output:
hoho
hihi
haha
The notion that regex doesn't support inverse matching is not entirely true. You can mimic this behavior by using negative look-arounds:
^((?!hede).)*$
The regex above will match any string, or line without a line break, not containing the (sub)string 'hede'. As mentioned, this is not something regex is "good" at (or should do), but still, it is possible.
And if you need to match line break chars as well, use the DOT-ALL modifier (the trailing s in the following pattern):
/^((?!hede).)*$/s
or use it inline:
/(?s)^((?!hede).)*$/
(where the /.../ are the regex delimiters, i.e., not part of the pattern)
If the DOT-ALL modifier is not available, you can mimic the same behavior with the character class [\s\S]:
/^((?!hede)[\s\S])*$/
Explanation
A string is just a list of n characters. Before, and after each character, there's an empty string. So a list of n characters will have n+1 empty strings. Consider the string "ABhedeCD":
┌──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┐
S = │e1│ A │e2│ B │e3│ h │e4│ e │e5│ d │e6│ e │e7│ C │e8│ D │e9│
└──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┘
index 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
where the e's are the empty strings. The regex (?!hede). looks ahead to see if there's no substring "hede" to be seen, and if that is the case (so something else is seen), then the . (dot) will match any character except a line break. Look-arounds are also called zero-width-assertions because they don't consume any characters. They only assert/validate something.
So, in my example, every empty string is first validated to see if there's no "hede" up ahead, before a character is consumed by the . (dot). The regex (?!hede). will do that only once, so it is wrapped in a group, and repeated zero or more times: ((?!hede).)*. Finally, the start- and end-of-input are anchored to make sure the entire input is consumed: ^((?!hede).)*$
As you can see, the input "ABhedeCD" will fail because on e3, the regex (?!hede) fails (there is "hede" up ahead!).
Note that the solution to does not start with “hede”:
^(?!hede).*$
is generally much more efficient than the solution to does not contain “hede”:
^((?!hede).)*$
The former checks for “hede” only at the input string’s first position, rather than at every position.
If you're just using it for grep, you can use grep -v hede to get all lines which do not contain hede.
ETA Oh, rereading the question, grep -v is probably what you meant by "tools options".
Answer:
^((?!hede).)*$
Explanation:
^the beginning of the string,
( group and capture to \1 (0 or more times (matching the most amount possible)),
(?! look ahead to see if there is not,
hede your string,
) end of look-ahead,
. any character except \n,
)* end of \1 (Note: because you are using a quantifier on this capture, only the LAST repetition of the captured pattern will be stored in \1)
$ before an optional \n, and the end of the string
The given answers are perfectly fine, just an academic point:
Regular Expressions in the meaning of theoretical computer sciences ARE NOT ABLE do it like this. For them it had to look something like this:
^([^h].*$)|(h([^e].*$|$))|(he([^h].*$|$))|(heh([^e].*$|$))|(hehe.+$)
This only does a FULL match. Doing it for sub-matches would even be more awkward.
If you want the regex test to only fail if the entire string matches, the following will work:
^(?!hede$).*
e.g. -- If you want to allow all values except "foo" (i.e. "foofoo", "barfoo", and "foobar" will pass, but "foo" will fail), use: ^(?!foo$).*
Of course, if you're checking for exact equality, a better general solution in this case is to check for string equality, i.e.
myStr !== 'foo'
You could even put the negation outside the test if you need any regex features (here, case insensitivity and range matching):
!/^[a-f]oo$/i.test(myStr)
The regex solution at the top of this answer may be helpful, however, in situations where a positive regex test is required (perhaps by an API).
FWIW, since regular languages (aka rational languages) are closed under complementation, it's always possible to find a regular expression (aka rational expression) that negates another expression. But not many tools implement this.
Vcsn supports this operator (which it denotes {c}, postfix).
You first define the type of your expressions: labels are letter (lal_char) to pick from a to z for instance (defining the alphabet when working with complementation is, of course, very important), and the "value" computed for each word is just a Boolean: true the word is accepted, false, rejected.
In Python:
In [5]: import vcsn
c = vcsn.context('lal_char(a-z), b')
c
Out[5]: {a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z} → 𝔹
then you enter your expression:
In [6]: e = c.expression('(hede){c}'); e
Out[6]: (hede)^c
convert this expression to an automaton:
In [7]: a = e.automaton(); a
finally, convert this automaton back to a simple expression.
In [8]: print(a.expression())
\e+h(\e+e(\e+d))+([^h]+h([^e]+e([^d]+d([^e]+e[^]))))[^]*
where + is usually denoted |, \e denotes the empty word, and [^] is usually written . (any character). So, with a bit of rewriting ()|h(ed?)?|([^h]|h([^e]|e([^d]|d([^e]|e.)))).*.
You can see this example here, and try Vcsn online there.
Here's a good explanation of why it's not easy to negate an arbitrary regex. I have to agree with the other answers, though: if this is anything other than a hypothetical question, then a regex is not the right choice here.
With negative lookahead, regular expression can match something not contains specific pattern. This is answered and explained by Bart Kiers. Great explanation!
However, with Bart Kiers' answer, the lookahead part will test 1 to 4 characters ahead while matching any single character. We can avoid this and let the lookahead part check out the whole text, ensure there is no 'hede', and then the normal part (.*) can eat the whole text all at one time.
Here is the improved regex:
/^(?!.*?hede).*$/
Note the (*?) lazy quantifier in the negative lookahead part is optional, you can use (*) greedy quantifier instead, depending on your data: if 'hede' does present and in the beginning half of the text, the lazy quantifier can be faster; otherwise, the greedy quantifier be faster. However if 'hede' does not present, both would be equal slow.
Here is the demo code.
For more information about lookahead, please check out the great article: Mastering Lookahead and Lookbehind.
Also, please check out RegexGen.js, a JavaScript Regular Expression Generator that helps to construct complex regular expressions. With RegexGen.js, you can construct the regex in a more readable way:
var _ = regexGen;
var regex = _(
_.startOfLine(),
_.anything().notContains( // match anything that not contains:
_.anything().lazy(), 'hede' // zero or more chars that followed by 'hede',
// i.e., anything contains 'hede'
),
_.endOfLine()
);
Benchmarks
I decided to evaluate some of the presented Options and compare their performance, as well as use some new Features.
Benchmarking on .NET Regex Engine: http://regexhero.net/tester/
Benchmark Text:
The first 7 lines should not match, since they contain the searched Expression, while the lower 7 lines should match!
Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
XRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex HeroRegex HeroRegex HeroRegex HeroRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.Regex Hero
egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her
egex Hero
egex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Nobody is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her o egex Hero Regex Hero Reg ex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Results:
Results are Iterations per second as the median of 3 runs - Bigger Number = Better
01: ^((?!Regex Hero).)*$ 3.914 // Accepted Answer
02: ^(?:(?!Regex Hero).)*$ 5.034 // With Non-Capturing group
03: ^(?!.*?Regex Hero).* 7.356 // Lookahead at the beginning, if not found match everything
04: ^(?>[^R]+|R(?!egex Hero))*$ 6.137 // Lookahead only on the right first letter
05: ^(?>(?:.*?Regex Hero)?)^.*$ 7.426 // Match the word and check if you're still at linestart
06: ^(?(?=.*?Regex Hero)(?#fail)|.*)$ 7.371 // Logic Branch: Find Regex Hero? match nothing, else anything
P1: ^(?(?=.*?Regex Hero)(*FAIL)|(*ACCEPT)) ????? // Logic Branch in Perl - Quick FAIL
P2: .*?Regex Hero(*COMMIT)(*FAIL)|(*ACCEPT) ????? // Direct COMMIT & FAIL in Perl
Since .NET doesn't support action Verbs (*FAIL, etc.) I couldn't test the solutions P1 and P2.
Summary:
The overall most readable and performance-wise fastest solution seems to be 03 with a simple negative lookahead. This is also the fastest solution for JavaScript, since JS does not support the more advanced Regex Features for the other solutions.
Not regex, but I've found it logical and useful to use serial greps with pipe to eliminate noise.
eg. search an apache config file without all the comments-
grep -v '\#' /opt/lampp/etc/httpd.conf # this gives all the non-comment lines
and
grep -v '\#' /opt/lampp/etc/httpd.conf | grep -i dir
The logic of serial grep's is (not a comment) and (matches dir)
Since no one else has given a direct answer to the question that was asked, I'll do it.
The answer is that with POSIX grep, it's impossible to literally satisfy this request:
grep "<Regex for 'doesn't contain hede'>" input
The reason is that with no flags, POSIX grep is only required to work with Basic Regular Expressions (BREs), which are simply not powerful enough for accomplishing that task, because of lack of alternation in subexpressions. The only kind of alternation it supports involves providing multiple regular expressions separated by newlines, and that doesn't cover all regular languages, e.g. there's no finite collection of BREs that matches the same regular language as the extended regular expression (ERE) ^(ab|cd)*$.
However, GNU grep implements extensions that allow it. In particular, \| is the alternation operator in GNU's implementation of BREs. If your regular expression engine supports alternation, parentheses and the Kleene star, and is able to anchor to the beginning and end of the string, that's all you need for this approach. Note however that negative sets [^ ... ] are very convenient in addition to those, because otherwise, you need to replace them with an expression of the form (a|b|c| ... ) that lists every character that is not in the set, which is extremely tedious and overly long, even more so if the whole character set is Unicode.
Thanks to formal language theory, we get to see how such an expression looks like. With GNU grep, the answer would be something like:
grep "^\([^h]\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\([^eh]\|e[^dh]\|ed[^eh]\)\)*\(\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\(\|e\|ed\)\)$" input
(found with Grail and some further optimizations made by hand).
You can also use a tool that implements EREs, like egrep, to get rid of the backslashes, or equivalently, pass the -E flag to POSIX grep (although I was under the impression that the question required avoiding any flags to grep whatsoever):
egrep "^([^h]|h(h|eh|edh)*([^eh]|e[^dh]|ed[^eh]))*(|h(h|eh|edh)*(|e|ed))$" input
Here's a script to test it (note it generates a file testinput.txt in the current directory). Several of the expressions presented in other answers fail this test.
#!/bin/bash
REGEX="^\([^h]\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\([^eh]\|e[^dh]\|ed[^eh]\)\)*\(\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\(\|e\|ed\)\)$"
# First four lines as in OP's testcase.
cat > testinput.txt <<EOF
hoho
hihi
haha
hede
h
he
ah
head
ahead
ahed
aheda
ahede
hhede
hehede
hedhede
hehehehehehedehehe
hedecidedthat
EOF
diff -s -u <(grep -v hede testinput.txt) <(grep "$REGEX" testinput.txt)
In my system it prints:
Files /dev/fd/63 and /dev/fd/62 are identical
as expected.
For those interested in the details, the technique employed is to convert the regular expression that matches the word into a finite automaton, then invert the automaton by changing every acceptance state to non-acceptance and vice versa, and then converting the resulting FA back to a regular expression.
As everyone has noted, if your regular expression engine supports negative lookahead, the regular expression is much simpler. For example, with GNU grep:
grep -P '^((?!hede).)*$' input
However, this approach has the disadvantage that it requires a backtracking regular expression engine. This makes it unsuitable in installations that are using secure regular expression engines like RE2, which is one reason to prefer the generated approach in some circumstances.
Using Kendall Hopkins' excellent FormalTheory library, written in PHP, which provides a functionality similar to Grail, and a simplifier written by myself, I've been able to write an online generator of negative regular expressions given an input phrase (only alphanumeric and space characters currently supported, and the length is limited): http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/misc/non-match-regex/
For hede it outputs:
^([^h]|h(h|e(h|dh))*([^eh]|e([^dh]|d[^eh])))*(h(h|e(h|dh))*(ed?)?)?$
which is equivalent to the above.
with this, you avoid to test a lookahead on each positions:
/^(?:[^h]+|h++(?!ede))*+$/
equivalent to (for .net):
^(?>(?:[^h]+|h+(?!ede))*)$
Old answer:
/^(?>[^h]+|h+(?!ede))*$/
Aforementioned (?:(?!hede).)* is great because it can be anchored.
^(?:(?!hede).)*$ # A line without hede
foo(?:(?!hede).)*bar # foo followed by bar, without hede between them
But the following would suffice in this case:
^(?!.*hede) # A line without hede
This simplification is ready to have "AND" clauses added:
^(?!.*hede)(?=.*foo)(?=.*bar) # A line with foo and bar, but without hede
^(?!.*hede)(?=.*foo).*bar # Same
An, in my opinon, more readable variant of the top answer:
^(?!.*hede)
Basically, "match at the beginning of the line if and only if it does not have 'hede' in it" - so the requirement translated almost directly into regex.
Of course, it's possible to have multiple failure requirements:
^(?!.*(hede|hodo|hada))
Details: The ^ anchor ensures the regex engine doesn't retry the match at every location in the string, which would match every string.
The ^ anchor in the beginning is meant to represent the beginning of the line. The grep tool matches each line one at a time, in contexts where you're working with a multiline string, you can use the "m" flag:
/^(?!.*hede)/m # JavaScript syntax
or
(?m)^(?!.*hede) # Inline flag
Here's how I'd do it:
^[^h]*(h(?!ede)[^h]*)*$
Accurate and more efficient than the other answers. It implements Friedl's "unrolling-the-loop" efficiency technique and requires much less backtracking.
Another option is that to add a positive look-ahead and check if hede is anywhere in the input line, then we would negate that, with an expression similar to:
^(?!(?=.*\bhede\b)).*$
with word boundaries.
The expression is explained on the top right panel of regex101.com, if you wish to explore/simplify/modify it, and in this link, you can watch how it would match against some sample inputs, if you like.
RegEx Circuit
jex.im visualizes regular expressions:
If you want to match a character to negate a word similar to negate character class:
For example, a string:
<?
$str="aaa bbb4 aaa bbb7";
?>
Do not use:
<?
preg_match('/aaa[^bbb]+?bbb7/s', $str, $matches);
?>
Use:
<?
preg_match('/aaa(?:(?!bbb).)+?bbb7/s', $str, $matches);
?>
Notice "(?!bbb)." is neither lookbehind nor lookahead, it's lookcurrent, for example:
"(?=abc)abcde", "(?!abc)abcde"
The OP did not specify or Tag the post to indicate the context (programming language, editor, tool) the Regex will be used within.
For me, I sometimes need to do this while editing a file using Textpad.
Textpad supports some Regex, but does not support lookahead or lookbehind, so it takes a few steps.
If I am looking to retain all lines that Do NOT contain the string hede, I would do it like this:
1. Search/replace the entire file to add a unique "Tag" to the beginning of each line containing any text.
Search string:^(.)
Replace string:<##-unique-##>\1
Replace-all
2. Delete all lines that contain the string hede (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>.*hede.*\n
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
3. At this point, all remaining lines Do NOT contain the string hede. Remove the unique "Tag" from all lines (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
Now you have the original text with all lines containing the string hede removed.
If I am looking to Do Something Else to only lines that Do NOT contain the string hede, I would do it like this:
1. Search/replace the entire file to add a unique "Tag" to the beginning of each line containing any text.
Search string:^(.)
Replace string:<##-unique-##>\1
Replace-all
2. For all lines that contain the string hede, remove the unique "Tag":
Search string:<##-unique-##>(.*hede)
Replace string:\1
Replace-all
3. At this point, all lines that begin with the unique "Tag", Do NOT contain the string hede. I can now do my Something Else to only those lines.
4. When I am done, I remove the unique "Tag" from all lines (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
Since the introduction of ruby-2.4.1, we can use the new Absent Operator in Ruby’s Regular Expressions
from the official doc
(?~abc) matches: "", "ab", "aab", "cccc", etc.
It doesn't match: "abc", "aabc", "ccccabc", etc.
Thus, in your case ^(?~hede)$ does the job for you
2.4.1 :016 > ["hoho", "hihi", "haha", "hede"].select{|s| /^(?~hede)$/.match(s)}
=> ["hoho", "hihi", "haha"]
Through PCRE verb (*SKIP)(*F)
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)|^.*$
This would completely skips the line which contains the exact string hede and matches all the remaining lines.
DEMO
Execution of the parts:
Let us consider the above regex by splitting it into two parts.
Part before the | symbol. Part shouldn't be matched.
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)
Part after the | symbol. Part should be matched.
^.*$
PART 1
Regex engine will start its execution from the first part.
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)
Explanation:
^ Asserts that we are at the start.
hede Matches the string hede
$ Asserts that we are at the line end.
So the line which contains the string hede would be matched. Once the regex engine sees the following (*SKIP)(*F) (Note: You could write (*F) as (*FAIL)) verb, it skips and make the match to fail. | called alteration or logical OR operator added next to the PCRE verb which inturn matches all the boundaries exists between each and every character on all the lines except the line contains the exact string hede. See the demo here. That is, it tries to match the characters from the remaining string. Now the regex in the second part would be executed.
PART 2
^.*$
Explanation:
^ Asserts that we are at the start. ie, it matches all the line starts except the one in the hede line. See the demo here.
.* In the Multiline mode, . would match any character except newline or carriage return characters. And * would repeat the previous character zero or more times. So .* would match the whole line. See the demo here.
Hey why you added .* instead of .+ ?
Because .* would match a blank line but .+ won't match a blank. We want to match all the lines except hede , there may be a possibility of blank lines also in the input . so you must use .* instead of .+ . .+ would repeat the previous character one or more times. See .* matches a blank line here.
$ End of the line anchor is not necessary here.
The TXR Language supports regex negation.
$ txr -c '#(repeat)
#{nothede /~hede/}
#(do (put-line nothede))
#(end)' Input
A more complicated example: match all lines that start with a and end with z, but do not contain the substring hede:
$ txr -c '#(repeat)
#{nothede /a.*z&~.*hede.*/}
#(do (put-line nothede))
#(end)' -
az <- echoed
az
abcz <- echoed
abcz
abhederz <- not echoed; contains hede
ahedez <- not echoed; contains hede
ace <- not echoed; does not end in z
ahedz <- echoed
ahedz
Regex negation is not particularly useful on its own but when you also have intersection, things get interesting, since you have a full set of boolean set operations: you can express "the set which matches this, except for things which match that".
It may be more maintainable to two regexes in your code, one to do the first match, and then if it matches run the second regex to check for outlier cases you wish to block for example ^.*(hede).* then have appropriate logic in your code.
OK, I admit this is not really an answer to the posted question posted and it may also use slightly more processing than a single regex. But for developers who came here looking for a fast emergency fix for an outlier case then this solution should not be overlooked.
The below function will help you get your desired output
<?PHP
function removePrepositions($text){
$propositions=array('/\bfor\b/i','/\bthe\b/i');
if( count($propositions) > 0 ) {
foreach($propositions as $exceptionPhrase) {
$text = preg_replace($exceptionPhrase, '', trim($text));
}
$retval = trim($text);
}
return $retval;
}
?>
I wanted to add another example for if you are trying to match an entire line that contains string X, but does not also contain string Y.
For example, let's say we want to check if our URL / string contains "tasty-treats", so long as it does not also contain "chocolate" anywhere.
This regex pattern would work (works in JavaScript too)
^(?=.*?tasty-treats)((?!chocolate).)*$
(global, multiline flags in example)
Interactive Example: https://regexr.com/53gv4
Matches
(These urls contain "tasty-treats" and also do not contain "chocolate")
example.com/tasty-treats/strawberry-ice-cream
example.com/desserts/tasty-treats/banana-pudding
example.com/tasty-treats-overview
Does Not Match
(These urls contain "chocolate" somewhere - so they won't match even though they contain "tasty-treats")
example.com/tasty-treats/chocolate-cake
example.com/home-cooking/oven-roasted-chicken
example.com/tasty-treats/banana-chocolate-fudge
example.com/desserts/chocolate/tasty-treats
example.com/chocolate/tasty-treats/desserts
As long as you are dealing with lines, simply mark the negative matches and target the rest.
In fact, I use this trick with sed because ^((?!hede).)*$ looks not supported by it.
For the desired output
Mark the negative match: (e.g. lines with hede), using a character not included in the whole text at all. An emoji could probably be a good choice for this purpose.
s/(.*hede)/🔒\1/g
Target the rest (the unmarked strings: e.g. lines without hede). Suppose you want to keep only the target and delete the rest (as you want):
s/^🔒.*//g
For a better understanding
Suppose you want to delete the target:
Mark the negative match: (e.g. lines with hede), using a character not included in the whole text at all. An emoji could probably be a good choice for this purpose.
s/(.*hede)/🔒\1/g
Target the rest (the unmarked strings: e.g. lines without hede). Suppose you want to delete the target:
s/^[^🔒].*//g
Remove the mark:
s/🔒//g
^((?!hede).)*$ is an elegant solution, except since it consumes characters you won't be able to combine it with other criteria. For instance, say you wanted to check for the non-presence of "hede" and the presence of "haha." This solution would work because it won't consume characters:
^(?!.*\bhede\b)(?=.*\bhaha\b)
How to use PCRE's backtracking control verbs to match a line not containing a word
Here's a method that I haven't seen used before:
/.*hede(*COMMIT)^|/
How it works
First, it tries to find "hede" somewhere in the line. If successful, at this point, (*COMMIT) tells the engine to, not only not backtrack in the event of a failure, but also not to attempt any further matching in that case. Then, we try to match something that cannot possibly match (in this case, ^).
If a line does not contain "hede" then the second alternative, an empty subpattern, successfully matches the subject string.
This method is no more efficient than a negative lookahead, but I figured I'd just throw it on here in case someone finds it nifty and finds a use for it for other, more interesting applications.
Simplest thing that I could find would be
[^(hede)]
Tested at https://regex101.com/
You can also add unit-test cases on that site
A simpler solution is to use the not operator !
Your if statement will need to match "contains" and not match "excludes".
var contains = /abc/;
var excludes =/hede/;
if(string.match(contains) && !(string.match(excludes))){ //proceed...
I believe the designers of RegEx anticipated the use of not operators.
I am attempting to parse a complex string in JavaScript, and I'm pretty horrible with Regular Expressions, so I haven't had much luck. The data is loaded into a variable formatted as follows:
Miami 2.5 O (207.5) 125.0 | Oklahoma City -2.5 U (207.5) -145.0 (Feb 20, 2014 08:05 PM)
I am trying to parse that string following these parameters:
1) Each value must be loaded into their own variable (IE: separate variables for Miami, 2.5 O, (207.5) ect)
2) String must split at pipe character (I have this working with .split(" | ") )
3) I am dealing with city names that include spaces
4) The date at the end must be isolated and removed
I have a feeling regular expressions must be used, but I'm seriously hoping there is a different way to approach this. The example provided is just that, an example from a much larger data set. I can provide the full data set if requested.
More direct version of my question: Given the data above, what concepts / procedures can I use to intelligently parse the string elements into their own variables?
If RegEx must be used, will I need multiple expressions?
Thanks in advance for your help!
EDIT: In an effort to supply multiple pathways to a solution I'll explain the overarching problem as well. This data is the return of a RSS / XML item. The string mentioned above is sports odds, and is all contained in the title node of the feed I'm using. If anyone has a better XML / RSS feed for sports odds, I would be ecstatic for that as well.
EDIT 2: Thanks to the replies, I can run a RegEx that matches the data points needed. I'm now having trouble iterating through the matches and returning them correctly. I have the RegEx loaded into its own function:
function regExExtract (txt){
var exp = /([^|\d]+) ([-\d.]+ [A-Z]) (\([^)]+\)) ([-\d.]+) (\([^)]+\))?/g;
var comp_arr = exp.exec(txt);
return comp_arr;
}
And it is being called with:
var title_arr = regExExtract(title);
Title is loaded with the data string listed above. I assume I'm using the global flag correctly to ensure all matches are considered, but I'm not sure I'm loading the matches correctly. I apologize for my ignorance, this is all brand new to me.
As requested below, my expected output is ultimately a table with a row for each city, and its subsequent data. Each cell in each row corresponds to a data point.
I have created a JS Fiddle with what I've done, and what the expected output is:
http://jsfiddle.net/vDkQD/2/
Potential Final Edit: With the assistance of Robin and rewt, I have come up with:
http://jsfiddle.net/hMJx3/
Wouldn't a regex like
/([^|\d]+) ([-\d.]+ [A-Z]) (\([^)]+\)) ([-\d.]+) (\([^)]+\))?/g
do the trick? Obviously, this is based on the example string you gave, and if there are other patterns possible this should be updated... But if it is that fixed it's not so complicated.
Afterwards you just have to go through the captured groups for each match, and you'll have your data parsed. Live demo for fun: http://regex101.com/r/kF5zD3
Explanation
[^|\d] evrything but a pipe or a digit. This is to account for strange city name that [a-zA-Z ] might not catch
[-\d.] a digit, a dot or a hyphen
\([^)]+\) opening parenthesis, everything that isn't a closing parenthesis, closing parenthesis.
Quick incomplete pointers on regex
Here, the regex is the part between the /. The g after is a flag, thanks to it the regex won't stop after hitting the first match and will return every match
The match is what the whole expression will find. Here, the match will be everything between two | in your string. The capturing groups are a very useful tool that allows you too extract data from this match: they are delimited by parenthesis, which are a special character in regex. (a)b will match ab, the first captured group of this match will be a
[...] is means every character inside will do. [abc] will match a or b or c.
+ is a quantifier, another special character, meaning "one or more of what precedes me". a+ means "one or more a and will match aaaaa.
\d is a shortcut for [0-9] (yes, - is a special range character inside of [...]. That's why in [-\d.], which is equivalent to [-0-9.], it's directly following the opening bracket)
since parenthesis are special characters, when you actually want to match a parenthesis you need to escape: regex (\(a\))b will match (a)b, the first captured group of this match will be (a) with the parenthesis
? means what precedes is optional (zero or one instances)
^ when put at the beginning of a [...] statement means "everything but what's in the brackets". [^a]+ will match bcd-*ù but not aa
If you really know nothing about regex, as I believe they're the right tool for your case, I suggest your take a quick overview of a tuto, just to get a better idea of what you're dealing with. The way to set flags, loop through matches and their respective captured groups will depend on your language and how you call your regex.
[A-z][a-z]+( [A-z][a-z]+)* -?[0-9]+\.[0-9] [OU] \(-?[0-9]+\.[0-9]\) -?[0-9]+\.[0-9]
This should match a single part of your long string under the following assumptions:
The city consists only of alpha characters, each word starts with an uppercase character and is at least 2 characters long.
Numbers have an optional sign and exactly one digit after the decimal point
the single character is either O or U
Now it is up to you to:
Properly create capturing parentheses
Check whether my assumptions are right
In order to match the date:
\([JFMASOND][a-z]{2} [0-9]?[0-9], [0-9]{4} [0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2} [AP]M\)$
On this article, it mentioned
Make sure you are clear on the fact that an expression pattern is
tested on each individual character. And that, just because the engine
moves forward when following the pattern and looking for a match it
still backtracks and examines each character in a string until a match
is found or if the global flag is set until all characters are
examined.
But what I tested in Javascript
"aaa#bbb".match(/a+#b+/g)
does not produce a result like:
["aaa#bbb", "aa#bbb", "a#bbb"]
It only produces ["aaa#bbb"]. It seems it does not examine each character to test the pattern. Can anyone can explain a little on matching steps ？ Thanks.
/g does not mean it will try to find every possible subset of characters in the input string which may match the given pattern. It means that once a match is found, it will continue searching for more substrings which may match the pattern starting from the previous match onward.
For example:
"aaa#bbb ... aaaa#bbbb".match(/a+#b+/g);
Will produce
["aaa#bbb", "aaaa#bbbb"]
That explanation is mixing two distinct concepts that IMO should be kept separated
A) backtracking
When looking for a match the normal behavior for a quantifier (?, *, +) is to be "greedy", i.e. to munch as much as possible... for example in /(a+)([^b]+)/ tested with aaaacccc all the a will be part of group 1 even if of course they also match the char set [^b] (everything but b).
However if grabbing too much is going to prevent a match the RE rules require that the quantifier "backtracks" capturing less if this allows the expression to match. For example in (a+)([^b]+) tested with aaaa the group 1 will get only three as, to leave one for group 2 to match.
You can change this greedy behavior with "non-greedy quantifiers" like *?, +?, ??. In this case stills the engine does backtracking but with the reverse meaning: a non-greedy subexpression will eat as little as possible that allows the rest of expression to match. For example (a+)(a+b+) tested with aaabbb will leave two as for group 1 and abbb for group 2, but (a+?)(a+b+) with the same string instead will leave only one a for group 1 because this is the minimum that allows matching the remaining part.
Note that also because of backtracking the greedy/non-greedy options doesn't change if an expression has a match or not, but only how big is the match and how much goes to each sub-expression.
B) the "global" option
This is something totally unrelated to backtracking and simply means that instead of stopping at the first match the search must find all non-overlapping matches. This is done by finding the first match and then starting again the search after the end of the match.
Note that each match is computed using the standard regexp rules and there is no look-ahead or backtracking between different matches: in other words if making for example a greedy match shorter would give more matches in the string this option is not considered... a+[^b]+ tested with aaaaaa is going to give only one match even if g option is specified and even if the substrings aa, aa, aa would have been each a valid match for the regexp.
When the global flag is used, it starts searching for the next match after the end of the previous match, to prevent generating lots of overlapping matches like that.
If you don't specify /g, the engine will stop as soon as a match is found.
If you do specify /g, it will keep going after a match. It will, however, still not produce overlapping matches, which is what you're asking about.
Its because.,
What Regex try to do:
All regex expression will try to match the best match.
What Regex wont do
It will not match the combinations for a single match as in your case.
When your "aaa#bbb".match(/a+#b+/g) scenario works
Rather, aaa#bbbHiaa#bbbHelloa#bbbSEEYOU try for some thing like this, which will give you
aaa#bbb
aa#bbb
a#bbb
I'm learning Javascript via an online tutorial, but nowhere on that website or any other I googled for was the jumble of symbols explained that makes up a regular expression.
Check if all numbers: /^[0-9]+$/
Check if all letters: /^[a-zA-Z]+$/
And the hardest one:
Validate Email: /^[\w-.+]+\#[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+.[a-zA-z0-9]{2,4}$/
What do all the slashes and dollar signs and brackets mean? Please explain.
(By the way, what languages are required to create a flexible website? I know a bit of Javascript and wanna learn jQuery and PHP. Anything else needed?)
Thanks.
There are already a number of good sites that explain regular expressions so I'll just dive a bit into how each of the specific examples you gave translate.
Check if all numbers: ^ anchors the start of the expression (e.g. start at the beginning of the text). Without it a match could be found anywhere. [0-9] finds the characters in that character class (e.g. the numbers 0-9). The + after the character class just means "one or more". The ending $ anchors the end of the text (e.g. the match should run to the end of the input). So if you put that together, that regular expression would allow for only 1 or more numbers in a string. Note that the anchors are important as without them it might match something like "foo123bar".
Check if all letters: Pretty much the same as above but the character classes are different. In this example the character class [a-zA-Z] represents all lowercase and uppercase characters.
The last one actually isn't any more difficult than the other two it's just longer. This answer is getting quite long so I'll just explain the new symbols. A \w in a character class will match word characters (which are defined per regex implementation but are generally 0-9a-zA-Z_ at least). The backslash before the # escapes the # so that it isn't seen as a token in the regex. A period will match any character so .+ will match one or more of any character (e.g. a, 1, Z, 1a, etc). The last part of the regex ({2,4}) defines an interval expression. This means that it can match a minimum of 2 of the thing that precedes it, and a maximum of 4.
Hope you got something out of the above.
There is an awesome explanation of regular expressions at http://www.regular-expressions.info/ including notes on language and implementation specifics.
Let me explain:
Check if all numbers: /^[0-9]+$/
So, first thing we see is the "/" at the beginning and the end. This is a deliminator, and only serves to show the beginning and end of the regular expression.
Next, we have a "^", this means the beginning of the string. [0-9] means a number from 0-9. + is a modifier, which modifies the term in front of it, in this case, it means you can have one or more of something, so you can have one or more numbers from 0-9.
Finally, we end with "$", which is the opposite of "^", and means the end of the string. So put that all together and it basically makes sure that inbetween the start and end of the string, there can be any number of digits from 0-9.
Check if all letters: /^[a-zA-Z]+$/
We notice this is very similar, but instead of checking for numbers 0-9, it checks for letters a-z (lowercase) and A-Z (uppercase).
And the hardest one:
Validate Email: /^[\w-.+]+\#[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+.[a-zA-z0-9]{2,4}$/
"\w" means that it is a word, in this case we can have any number of letters or numbers, as well as the period means that it can be pretty much any character.
The new thing here is escape characters. Many symbols cannot be used without escaping them by placing a slash in front, as is the case with "\#". This means it is looking directly for the symbol "#".
Now it looks for letters and symbols, a period (this one seems incorrect, it should be escaping the period too, though it will still work, since an unescaped period will make any symbol). Numbers inside {} mean that there is inbetween this many terms in the previous term, so of the [a-zA-Z0-9], there should be 2-4 characters (this part here is the website domain, such as .com, .ca, or .info). Note there's another error in this one here, the [a-zA-z0-9] should be [a-zA-Z0-9] (capital Z).
Oh, and check out that site listed above, it is a great set of tutorials too.
Regular Expressions is a complex beast and, as already pointed out, there are quite a few guides off of google you can go read.
To answer the OP questions:
Check if all numbers: /^[0-9]+$/
regexps here are all delimated with //, much like strings are quoted with '' or "".
^ means start of string or line (depending on what options you have about multiline matching)
[...] are called character classes. Anything in [] is a list of single matching characters at that position in this case 0-9. The minus sign has a special meaning of "sequence of characters between". So [0-9] means "one of 0123456789".
+ means "1 or more" of the preceeding match (in this case [0-9]) so one or more numbers
$ means end of string/line match.
So in summary find any string that contains only numbers, i.e '0123a' will not match as [0-9]+ fails to match a before $).
Check if all letters: /^[a-zA-Z]+$/
Hopefully [A-Za-z] makes sense now (A-Z = ABCDEF...XYZ and a-z abcdef...xyz)
Validate Email: /^[\w-.+]+\#[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+.[a-zA-z0-9]{2,4}$/
Not all regexp parses know the \w sequence. Javascript, java and perl I know do support it.
I have already have covered '/^ at the beginning, for this [] match we are looking for
\w - . and +. I think that regexp is incorrect. Either the minus sign should be escaped with \ or it should be at the end of the [] (i.e [\w+.-]). But that is an aside they are basically attempting to allow anything of abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz01234567890-.+
so fred.smith-foo+wee#mymail.com will match but fred.smith%foo+wee#mymail.com wont (the % is not matched by [\w.+-]).
\# is the litteral atsil sign (it is escaped as perl expands # an array variable reference)
[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+ is the same as [\w.-]+. Very much like the user part of the match, but does not match +. So this matches foo.com. and google.co. but not my+foo.com or my***domain.co.
. means match any one character. This again is incorrect as fred#foo%com will match as . matches %*^%$£! etc. This should of been written as \.
The last character class [a-zA-z0-9]{2,4} looks for between 2 3 or 4 of the a-zA-Z0-9 specified in the character class (much like + looks for "1 more more" {2,4} means at least 2 with a maximum of 4 of the preceeding match. So 'foo' matches, '11' matches, '11111' does not match and 'information' does not.
The "tweaked" regexp should be:
/^[\w.+-]+\#[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-z0-9]{2,4}$/
I'm not doing a tutorial on RegEx's, that's been done really well already, but here are what your expressions mean.
/^<something>$/ String begins, has something in the middle, and then immediately ends.
/^foo$/.test('foo'); // true
/^foo$/.test('fool'); // false
/^foo$/.test('afoo'); // false
+ One or more of something:
/a+/.test('cot');//false
/a+/.test('cat');//true
/a+/.test('caaaaaaaaaaaat');//true
[<something>] Include any characters found between the brackets. (includes ranges like 0-9, a-z, and A-Z, as well as special codes like \w for 0-9a-zA-Z_-
/^[0-9]+/.test('f00')//false
/^[0-9]+/.test('000')//true
{x,y} between X and Y occurrences
/^[0-9]{1,2}$/.test('12');// true
/^[0-9]{1,2}$/.test('1');// true
/^[0-9]{1,2}$/.test('d');// false
/^[0-9]{1,2}$/.test('124');// false
So, that should cover everything, but for good measure:
/^[\w-.+]+\#[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+.[a-zA-z0-9]{2,4}$/
Begins with at least character from \w, -, +, or .. Followed by an #, followed by at least one in the set a-zA-Z0-9.- followed by one character of anything (. means anything, they meant \.), followed by 2-4 characters of a-zA-z0-9
As a side note, this regular expression to check emails is not only dated, but it is very, very, very incorrect.