I just learned from a book about regular expressions in the Ruby language. I did Google it, but still got confused about {x} and {x,y}.
The book says:
{x}→Match x occurrences of the preceding character.
{x,y}→Match at least x occurrences and at most y occurrences.
Can anyone explain this better, or provide some examples?
Sure, look at these examples:
http://rubular.com/r/sARHv0vf72
http://rubular.com/r/730Zo6rIls
/a{4}/
is the short version for:
/aaaa/
It says: Match exact 4 (consecutive) characters of 'a'.
where
/a{2,4}/
says: Match at least 2, and at most 4 characters of 'a'.
it will match
/aa/
/aaa/
/aaaa/
and it won't match
/a/
/aaaaa/
/xxx/
Limiting Repetition good online tutorial for this.
I highly recommend regexbuddy.com and very briefly, the regex below does what you refer to:
[0-9]{3}|\w{3}
The [ ] characters indicate that you must match a number between 0 and 9. It can be anything, but the [ ] is literal match. The { } with a 3 inside means match sets of 3 numbers between 0 and 9. The | is an or statement. The \w, is short hand for any word character and once again the {3} returns only sets of 3.
If you go to RegexPal.com you can enter the code above and test it. I used the following data to test the expression:
909 steve kinzey
and the expression matched the 909, the 'ste', the 'kin' and the 'zey'. It did not match the 've' because it is only 2 word characters long and a word character does not span white space so it could not carry over to the second word.
Interval Expressions
GNU awk refers to these as "interval expressions" in the Regexp Operators section of its manual. It explains the expressions as follows:
{n}
{n,}
{n,m}
One or two numbers inside braces denote an interval expression. If there is one number in the braces, the preceding regexp is repeated n times. If there are two numbers separated by a comma, the preceding regexp is repeated n to m times. If there is one number followed by a comma, then the preceding regexp is repeated at least n times:
The manual also includes these reference examples:
wh{3}y
Matches ‘whhhy’, but not ‘why’ or ‘whhhhy’.
wh{3,5}y
Matches ‘whhhy’, ‘whhhhy’, or ‘whhhhhy’, only.
wh{2,}y
Matches ‘whhy’ or ‘whhhy’, and so on.
See Also
Ruby's Regexp class.
Quantifiers section of Ruby's oniguruma engine.
Related
I have a string in bash
string="123 abc 456"
Where numbers that are grouped together are considered 1 number.
"123" and "456" would be considered numbers in this case.
How can i determine the number of grouped together numbers?
so
"123"
is determined to be a string with just one number, and
"123 abc 456"
is determined to be a string with 2 numbers.
egrep -o '[0-9]+' <<<"$string" | wc -l
Explanation
egrep: This performs an extended regular expression match on the lines of a given file (or, in this case, a herestring). It usually returns lines of text within the string that contain at least one chunk of text that matches the supplied pattern. However, the -o flag tells it to return only those matching chunks, one per line of output.
'[0-9]+': This is the regular expression that the string is compared against. Here, we are telling it to match successive runs of 1 or more digits, and no other character.
<<< The herestring operator allows us to pass a string into a command as if were the contents of a file.
| This pipes the output of the previous command (egrep) to become the input for the next command (wc).
wc: This performs a word count, normally returning the number of words in a given argument. However, the -l tells it to do a line count instead.
UPDATE: 2018-08-23
Is there any way to adapt your solution to work with floats?
The regular expression that matches both integer numbers and floating point decimal numbers would be something like this: '[0-9]*\.?[0-9]+'. Inserting this into the command above in place of its predecessor, forms this command chain:
egrep -o '[0-9]*\.?[0-9]+' <<<"$string" | wc -l
Focussing now only on the regular expression, here's how it works:
[0-9]: This matches any single digit from 0 to 9.
*: This is an operator that applies to the expression that comes directly before it, i.e. the [0-9] character class. It tells the search engine to match any number of occurrences of the digits 0 to 9 instead of just one, but no other character. Therefore, it will match "2", "26", "4839583", ... but it will not match "9.99" as a singular entity (but will, of course, match the "9" and the "99" that feature within it). As the * operator matches any number of successive digits, this can include zero occurrences (this will become relevant later).
\.: This matches a singular occurrence of a period (or decimal point), ".". The backslash is a special character that tells the search engine to interpret the period as a literal period, because this character itself has special function in regular expression strings, acting as a wildcard to match any character except a line-break. Without the backslash, that's what it would do, which would potentially match "28s" if it came across it, where the "s" was caught by the wildcard period. However, the backslash removes the wildcard functionality, so it will now only match with an actual period.
?: Another operator, like the *, except this one tells the search engine to match the previous expression either zero or one times, but no more. In other words, it makes the decimal point optional.
[0-9]+: As before, this will match digits 0 to 9, the number of which here is determined by the + operator, which standards for at least one, i.e. one or more digits.
Applying this to the following string:
"The value of pi is approximately 3.14159. The value of e is about 2.71828. The Golden Ratio is approximately 1.61803, which can be expressed as (√5 + 1)/2."
yields the following matches (one per line):
3.14159
2.71828
1.61803
5
1
2
And when this is piped through the wc -l command, returns a count of the lines, which is 6, i.e. the supplied string contains 6 occurrences of number strings, which includes integers and floating point decimals.
If you wanted only the floating point decimals, and to exclude the integers, the regular expression is this:
'[0-9]*\.[0-9]+'
If you look carefully, it's identical to the previous regular expression, except for the missing ? operator. If you recall, the ? made the decimal point an optional feature to match; removing this operator now means the decimal point must be present. Likewise, the + operator is matching at least one instance of a digit following the decimal point. However, the * operator before it matches any number of digits, including zero digits. Therefore, "0.61803" would be a valid match (if it were present in the string, which it isn't), and ".33333" would also be a valid match, since the digits before the decimal point needn't be there thanks to the * operator. However, whilst "1.1111" could be a valid match, "1111." would not be, because + operator dictates that there must be at least one digit following the decimal point.
Putting it into the command chain:
egrep -o '[0-9]*\.[0-9]+' <<<"$string" | wc -l
returns a value of 3, for the three floating point decimals occurring in the string, which, if you remove the | wc -l portion of the command, you will see in the terminal output as:
3.14159
2.71828
1.61803
For reasons I won't go into, matching integers exclusively and excluding floating point decimals is harder to accomplish with Perl-flavoured regular expression matching (which egrep is not). However, since you're really only interested in the number of these occurrences, rather than the matches themselves, we can create a regular expression that doesn't need to worry about accurate matching of integers, as long as it produces the same number of matched items. This expression:
'[^.0-9][0-9]+(\.([^0-9]|$)|[^.])'
seems to be good enough for counting the integers in the string, which includes the 5, 1 and 2 (ignoring, of course, the √ symbol), returning these approximately matches substrings:
√5
1)
/2.
I haven't tested it that thoroughly, however, and only formulated it tonight when I read your comment. But, hopefully, you are beginning to get a rough sense of what's going on.
In case you need to know the number of grouped digits in string then following may help you.
string="123 abc 456"
echo "$string" | awk '{print gsub(/[0-9]+/,"")}'
Explanation: Adding explanation too here, following is only for explanation purposes.
string="123 abc 456" ##Creating string named string with value of 123 abc 456.
echo "$string" ##Printing value of string here with echo.
| ##Putting its output as input to awk command.
awk '{ ##Initializing awk command here.
print gsub(/[0-9]+/,"") ##printing value of gsub here(where gsub is for substituting the values of all digits in group with ""(NULL)).
it will globally substitute the digits and give its count(how many substitutions happens will be equal to group of digits present).
}' ##Closing awk command here.
I found something odd when using a reluctant quantifier in a negative look ahead.
When creating a regex to assert a maximum of 3 uppercase characters, I devised this:
^(?!(.*?[A-Z]){4}).*$
which works on rubular, but not on regex101.
Why is that?
^, $ matches beginning/end of line in Ruby.
While in another languages, ^, $ matches the beginning/end of the string unless multiline mode (m) is specified. (Some regular expression engine requires g flag to match multiple times.)
I want to match single letters in a sentence. So in ...
I want to have my turkey. May I. I 20,000-t bar-b-q
I'd like to match
*I* want to have my turkey. May *I*. *I* 20,000-t bar-b-q
right now I'm using
/\b\w\b/
as my regular expression, but that is matching
*I* want to have my turkey. May *I*. *I* 20,000-*t* bar-*b*-*q*
Any suggestions on how to get past that last mile?
Use a negative lookbehind and negative lookahead to fail if the previous character is a word or a hyphen, or if the next character is a word a or a hyphen:
/(?<![\w\-])\w(?![\w\-])/
Example: http://www.rubular.com/r/9upmgfG9u4
Note that as mentioned by rtcherry, this will also match single numbers. To prevent this you may want to change the \w that is outside of the character classes to [a-zA-Z].
F.J's answer will also include numbers. This is restricted to ASCII characters, but you really need to define what characters can be side by side an still count as a single letter.
/(?<![0-9a-zA-Z\-])[a-zA-Z](?![0-9a-zA-Z\-])/
That will also avoid things like This -> 1a <- is not a single letter. Neither is -> 2 <- that.
As long as we're being picky, non-ASCII letters are easy to include:
/(?<![[:alnum:]-])[[:alpha:]](?![[:alnum:]-])/
This will avoid matching the t in 'Cómo eres tú'
Notice that it's not necessary to escape the - when it is the last character in a character class (which I'm not sure that this technically is).
You are asking far too much of a regular expression. \w matches a word character, which includes upper and lower case alphabetics, the ten digits, and underscore. So it is the same as [0-9A-Z_a-z].
\b matches the (zero-width) boundary where a word character doesn't have another word character next to it, for instance at the beginning or end of a string, or next to some punctuation or white space.
Using negative look-behinds and look-aheads, this amounts to \b\w\b being equivalent to
(?<!\w)\w(?!\w)
i.e. a word character that doesn't have another word character before or after it.
As you have found, that finds t, b and q in 20,000-t bar-b-q. So it's back in your court to define what you really mean by "single letters in a sentence".
It nearly works to say "any letter that isn't preceded or followed by a printable character, which is
/(?<!\S)[A-Za-z](?!\S)/
But that leaves out I in May I. because it has a dot after it.
So, do you mean a single letter that isn't preceded by a printable character, and is followed by whitespace, a dot, or the end of the string (or a comma, a semicolon or a colon for good measure)? Then you want
/(?<!\S)[A-Za-z](?=(?:[\s.,;:]|\z))/
which finds exactly three I characters in your string.
I hope that helps.
I have gone through the docs for Atomic Grouping and rubyinfo and some questions came into my mind:
Why the name "Atomic grouping"? What "atomicity" does it have that general grouping doesn't?
How does atomic grouping differ to general grouping?
Why are atomic groups called non-capturing groups?
I tried the below code to understand but had confusion about the output and how differently they work on the same string as well?
irb(main):001:0> /a(?>bc|b)c/ =~ "abbcdabcc"
=> 5
irb(main):004:0> $~
=> #<MatchData "abcc">
irb(main):005:0> /a(bc|b)c/ =~ "abcdabcc"
=> 0
irb(main):006:0> $~
=> #<MatchData "abc" 1:"b">
A () has some properties (include those such as (?!pattern), (?=pattern), etc. and the plain (pattern)), but the common property between all of them is grouping, which makes the arbitrary pattern a single unit (unit is my own terminology), which is useful in repetition.
The normal capturing (pattern) has the property of capturing and group. Capturing means that the text matches the pattern inside will be captured so that you can use it with back-reference, in matching or replacement. The non-capturing group (?:pattern) doesn't have the capturing property, so it will save a bit of space and speed up a bit compared to (pattern) since it doesn't store the start and end index of the string matching the pattern inside.
Atomic grouping (?>pattern) also has the non-capturing property, so the position of the text matched inside will not be captured.
Atomic grouping adds property of atomic compared to capturing or non-capturing group. Atomic here means: at the current position, find the first sequence (first is defined by how the engine matches according to the pattern given) that matches the pattern inside atomic grouping and hold on to it (so backtracking is disallowed).
A group without atomicity will allow backtracking - it will still find the first sequence, then if the matching ahead fails, it will backtrack and find the next sequence, until a match for the entire regex expression is found or all possibilities are exhausted.
Example
Input string: bbabbbabbbbc
Pattern: /(?>.*)c/
The first match by .* is bbabbbabbbbc due to the greedy quantifier *. It will hold on to this match, disallowing c from matching. The matcher will retry at the next position to the end of the string, and the same thing happens. So nothing matches the regex at all.
Input string: bbabbbabbbbc
Pattern: /((?>.*)|b*)[ac]/, for testing /(((?>.*))|(b*))[ac]/
There are 3 matches to this regex, which are bba, bbba, bbbbc. If you use the 2nd regex, which is the same but with capturing groups added for debugging purpose, you can see that all the matches are result of matching b* inside.
You can see the backtracking behavior here.
Without the atomic grouping /(.*|b*)[ac]/, the string will have a single match which is the whole string, due to backtracking at the end to match [ac]. Note that the engine will go back to .* to backtrack by 1 character since it still have other possibilities.
Pattern: /(.*|b*)[ac]/
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- Start matching. Look at first item in alternation: .*
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- First match of .*, due to greedy quantifier
bbabbbabbbbc
X -- [ac] cannot match
-- Backtrack to ()
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- Continue explore other possibility with .*
-- Step back 1 character
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- [ac] matches, end of regex, a match is found
With the atomic grouping, all possibilities of .* is cut off and limited to the first match. So after greedily eating the whole string and fail to match, the engine have to go for the b* pattern, where it successfully finds a match to the regex.
Pattern: /((?>.*)|b*)[ac]/
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- Start matching. Look at first item in alternation: (?>.*)
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- First match of .*, due to greedy quantifier
-- The atomic grouping will disallow .* to be backtracked and rematched
bbabbbabbbbc
X -- [ac] cannot match
-- Backtrack to ()
-- (?>.*) is atomic, check the next possibility by alternation: b*
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- Starting to rematch with b*
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- First match with b*, due to greedy quantifier
bbabbbabbbbc
^ -- [ac] matches, end of regex, a match is found
The subsequent matches will continue on from here.
I recently had to explain Atomic Groups to someone else and I thought I'd tweak and share the example here.
Consider /the (big|small|biggest) (cat|dog|bird)/
Matches in bold
the big dog
the small bird
the biggest dog
the small cat
DEMO
For the first line, a regex engine would find the .
It would then proceed on to our adjectives (big, small, biggest), it finds big.
Having matched big, it proceeds and finds the space.
It then looks at our pets (cat, dog, bird), finds cat, skips it, and finds dog.
For the second line, our regex would find the .
It would proceed and look at big, skip it, look at and find small.
It finds the space, skips cat and dog because they don't match, and finds bird.
For the third line, our regex would find the ,
It continues on and finds big which matches the immediate requirement, and proceeds.
It can't find the space, so it backtracks (rewinds the position to the last choice it made).
It skips big, skips small, and finds biggest which also matches the immediate requirement.
It then finds the space.
It skips cat , and matches dog.
For the fourth line, our regex would find the .
It would proceed to look at big, skip it, look at and find small.
It then finds the space.
It looks at and matches cat.
Consider /the (?>big|small|biggest) (cat|dog|bird)/
Note the ?> atomic group on adjectives.
Matches in bold
the big dog
the small bird
the biggest dog
the small cat
DEMO
For the first line, second line, and fourth line, we'll get the same result.
For the third line, our regex would find the ,
It continues on and find big which matches the immediate requirement, and proceeds.
It can't find the space, but the atomic group, being the last choice the engine made, won't allow that choice to be re-examined (prohibits backtracking).
Since it can't make a new choice, the match has to fail, since our simple expression has no other choices.
This is only a basic summary. An engine wouldn't need to look at the entirety of cat to know that it doesn't match dog, merely looking at the c is enough. When trying to match bird, the c in cat and the d in dog are enough to tell the engine to examine other options.
However if you had ...((cat|snake)|dog|bird), the engine would also, of course, need to examine snake before it dropped to the previous group and examined dog and bird.
There are also plenty of choices an engine can't decide without going past what may not seem like a match, which is what results in backtracking. If you have ((red)?cat|dog|bird), The engine will look at r, back out, notice the ? quantifier, ignore the subgroup (red), and look for a match.
An "atomic group" is one where the regular expression will never backtrack past. So in your first example /a(?>bc|b)c/ if the bc alternation in the group matches, then it will never backtrack out of that and try the b alternation. If you slightly alter your first example to match against "abcdabcc" then you'll see it still matches the "abcc" at the end of the string instead of the "abc" at the start. If you don't use an atomic group, then it can backtrack past the bc and try the b alternation and end up matching the "abc" at the start.
As for question two, how it's different, that's just a rephrasing of your first question.
And lastly, atomic groups are not "called" non-capturing groups. That's not an alternate name for them. Non-capturing groups are groups that do not capture their content. Typically when you match a regular expression against a string, you can retrieve all the matched groups, and if you use a substitution, you can use backreferences in the substitution like \1 to insert the captured groups there. But a non-capturing group does not provide this. The classic non-capturing group is (?:pattern). An atomic group happens to also have the non-capturing property, hence why it's called a non-capturing group.
Can anybody help me write a regular expression which could find all the instances of the following in a long string >
type="array" count="x" total="y"
where x and y could be any numbers from 1 to 100.
language is ruby.
First, since we'll use the regex for a number twice, we'll save it as its own variable. Note that the number regex is comprised of three separate pieces: one-digit numbers, two-digit numbers, and three-digit numbers. This is a good rule of thumb to use when trying to make a regex to match a range of numbers. It's easy to get it wrong otherwise (allowing strings like "07").
Once you have the number regex, the rest is easy.
number = /[1-9]|[1-9][0-9]|100/
regex = /type="array" count="#{number}" total="#{number}"/
string.scan(regex)
This will return an array of matches
long_string.scan(/type="array" count="(?:[1-9]\d?|100)" total="(?:[1-9]\d?|100)")