I actually have a string called "cond". This is the content of that string:
"20 < 50"
I would like to insert it into a condition like this: (example)
if 20 < 50
return "Hello"
But that condition is a string, so I can't write this:
if cond
return "Hello"
So I would like to know if it is possible to convert a string to a condition to set in an "if" condition. And if it is possible, how can I do it ?
Thank you.
eval might just be your friend here:
>> eval('20 < 50')
=> true
However, eval will execute the arbitrary code inside its argument; you should be sure that your cond can't contain anything detrimental to your system's health!
One alternative to using eval is perhaps to write an evaluator (or use/modify an existing one, like this one by Sterling Camden).
As is his code requires you to write lt, gt, eq, and so on, instead of <, >, ==, ... . As noted in a comment in calc.rb:
# Equality and its clan (note we cannot use '==' or other two-character
# non-word operators, because of the way we parse the string. Non-word
# characters come in one at a time.
If you know the condition will always be basic like the example you provided, you can do this:
left, op, right = "20 < 50".split
cond = left.to_i.send(op.to_sym, right.to_i)
Related
I have a script in bash that calls a TCL script for each element on my network which performs some actions based on the type of the element. This is part of the code that checks whether or not the hostname contains a specific pattern(e.g. *CGN01) and then gives the appropriate command to that machine.
if {[string match "{*CGN01}" $hostname] || $hostname == "AthMet1BG01"} {
expect {
"*#" {send "admin show inventory\r"; send "exit\r"; exp_continue}
eof
}
}
With the code i quoted above i get no error BUT when the hostname is "PhiMSC1CGN01" then the code inside the if is not executed which means that the expression is not correct.
I have tried everything (use of "()" or "{}" or"[]" inside the if) but when i dont put "" on the pattern i get an error like:
invalid bareword "string"
in expression "(string match {*DR0* *1TS0* *...";
should be "$string" or "{string}" or "string(...)" or ...
(parsing expression "(string match {*DR0* *...")
invoked from within
"if {$hostname == "AthMar1BG03" || [string match *CGN01 $hostname]...
or this:
expected boolean value but got "[string match -nocase "*CGN01" $hostname]==0"
while executing
"if {$hostname == "AthMar1BG03" || {[string match -nocase "*CGN01" $hostname]==0}...
when i tried to use ==0 or ==1 on the expression.
My TCL-Version is 8.3 and i cant update it because the machine has no internet connecticity :(
Please help me i am trying to fix this for over a month...
If you want to match a string that is either exactly AthMet1BG01 or any string that ends with CGN01, you should use
if {[string match *CGN01 $hostname] || $hostname == "AthMet1BG01"} {
(For Tcl 8.5 or later, use eq instead of ==.)
Some comments on your attempts:
(The notes about the expression language used by if go for expr and while as well. It is fully described in the documentation for expr.)
To invoke a command inside the condition and substitute its result, it needs to be enclosed in brackets ([ ]). Parentheses (( )) can be used to set the priority of subexpressions within the condition, but don't indicate a command substitution.
Normally, inside the condition strings need to be enclosed in double quotes or braces ({ }). This is because the expression language that is used to express the condition needs to distinguish between e.g. numbers and strings, which Tcl in general doesn't. Inside a command substitution within a condition, you don't need to use quotes or braces, as long as there are no characters in the string that you need to quote.
The string {abc} contains the characters abc. The string "{abc}" contains the characters {abc}, because the double quotes make the braces normal characters (the reverse also holds). [string match "{*bar}" $str] matches the string {foobar} (with the braces as part of the text), but not foobar.
If you put braces around a command substitution, {[incr foo]}, it becomes just the string [incr foo], i.e. the command isn't invoked and no substitution is made. If you use {[incr foo]==1} you get the string [incr foo]==1. The correct way to write this within an expression is [incr foo]==1, with optional whitespace around the ==.
All this is kind of hard to grok, but when you have it is really easy to use. Tcl is stubborn as a mule about interpreting strings, but carries heavy loads if you treat her right.
ETA an alternate matcher (see comments)
You can write your own alternate string matcher:
proc altmatch {patterns string} {
foreach pattern $patterns {
if {[string match $pattern $string]} {
return 1
}
}
return 0
}
If any of the patterns match, you get 1; if none of the patterns match, you get 0.
% altmatch {*bar f?o} foobar
1
% altmatch {*bar f?o} fao
1
% altmatch {*bar f?o} foa
0
For those who have a modern Tcl version, you can actually add it to the string ensemble so it works like other string commands. Put it in the right namespace:
proc ::tcl::string::altmatch {patterns string} {
... as before ...
and install it like this:
% set map [namespace ensemble configure string -map]
% dict set map altmatch ::tcl::string::altmatch
% namespace ensemble configure string -map $map
Documentation:
expr,
string,
Summary of Tcl language syntax
This command:
if {[string match "{*CGN01}" $hostname] || $hostname == "AthMet1BG01"} {
is syntactically valid but I really don't think that you want to use that pattern with string match. I'd guess that you really want:
if {[string match "*CGN01" $hostname] || $hostname == "AthMet1BG01"} {
The {braces} inside that pattern are not actually meaningful (string match only does a subset of the full capabilities of a glob match) so with your erroneous pattern you're actually trying to match a { at the start of $hostname, any number of characters, and then CGN01} at the end of $hostname. With the literal braces. Simply removing the braces lets PhiMSC1CGN01 match.
I Looking for an Regex to capture this examples of strings:
first_paramenter, first_hash_key: 'class1 class2', second_hash_key: true
first_argument, single_hash_key: 'class1 class2'
first_argument_without_second_argument
The pattern rules are:
The string must start some word (the first parameter) /^(\w+)/
The second parameter is optional
If second parameter provided, must have one comma after fisrt parameter
The second argument is an hash, with keys and values. Values can be true, false or an string enclosed by quotes
The hash keys must start with letter
I'm using this regex, but it matches with the only second example:
^(\w+),(\s[a-z]{1}[a-z_]+:\s'?[\w\s]+'?,?)$
I'd go with something like:
^(\w+)(?:, ([a-z]\w+): ('[^']*')(?:, ([a-z]\w+): (\w+))?)?
Here's a Rubular example of it.
(?:...) create non-capturing groups which we can easily test for existence using ?. That makes it easy to test for optional chunks.
([a-z]\w+) is an easy way to say "it must start with a letter" while allowing normal alpha, digits and "_".
As far as testing for "Values can be true, false or an string enclosed by quotes", I'd do that in code after capturing. It's way too easy to create a complex pattern, and then be unable to maintain it later. It's better to use simple ones, then look to see whether you got what you expected, than to try to enforce it inside the regex.
in the third example, your regex return 5 matches. It would be better if return only one. It's possible?
I'm not sure what you're asking. This will return a single capture for each, but why you'd want that makes no sense to me if you're capturing parameters to send to a method:
/^(\w+(?:, [a-z]\w+: '[^']*'(?:, [a-z]\w+: \w+)?)?)/
http://rubular.com/r/GLVuSOieI6
There is frequently a choice to be made between attacking an entire string with a single regex or breaking the string up with one or more String methods, and then going after each piece separately. The latter approach often makes debugging and testing easier, and may also make the code intelligible to mere mortals. It's always a judgement call, of course, but I think this problem lends itself well to the divide and conquer approach. This is how I'd do it.
Code
def match?(str)
a = str.split(',')
return false unless a.shift.strip =~ /^\w+$/
a.each do |s|
return false unless ((key_val = s.split(':')).size == 2) &&
key_val.first.strip =~ /^[a-z]\w*$/ &&
key_val.last.strip =~ /^(\'.*?\'|true|false)$/
end
true
end
Examples
match?("first_paramenter, first_hash_key: 'class1 class2',
second_hash_key: true")
#=>true
match?("first_argument, single_hash_key: 'class1 class2'")
#=>true
match?("first_argument_without_second_argument")
#=>true
match?("first_parameter, first_hash_key: 7")
#=>false
match?("dogs and cats, first_hash_key: 'class1 class2'")
#=>false
match?("first_paramenter, first_hash_key: 'class1 class2',
second_hash_key: :true")
#=>false
You've got the basic idea, you have a bunch of small mistakes in there
/^(\w+)(,\s[a-z][a-z_]+:\s('[^']*'|true|false))*$/
explained:
/^(\w+) # starts with a word
(
,\s # the comma goes _inside_ the parens since its optional
[a-z][a-z_]+:\s # {1} is completely redundant
( # use | in a capture group to allow different possible keys
'[^']*' | # note that '? doesn't make sure that the quotes always match
true |
false
)
)*$/x # can have 0 or more hash keys after the first word
I'm trying to write a regex to validate a string and accepts only a series of four comma-separated digits, each up to 100. Something like this would be valid:
20,30,40,50
and these invalid:
120,0,20,0
20,30,40,ss
invalid_string
Any thoughts?
They're used for CMYK colours. We just need to store them here, not use them.
Number Range and Subroutine
In Ruby 2+, for a compact regex, use this:
^([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|100)(?:,\g<1>){3}$
Explanation
The ^ anchor asserts that we are at the beginning of the string
The parentheses around ([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|100) match a number from 0 to 100 and define subroutine #1
(?:,\g<1>) matches one comma and the expression defined by subroutine # 1
The {3} quantifier repeats that three times
The $ anchor asserts that we are at the end of the string
I'd save myself the headache of using regex for a number related problem. Also the validation message will look akward so it's better to make your own:
validate :that_string_has_only_4_numbers_upto_100
def that_string_has_only_4_numbers_upto_100
errors.add(:str, 'is not valid.') unless str.split(/,/).all? { |n| 1..100 === n.to_i }
end
Unless you a re regex jedi guru like #zx81 :p.
^(?:\d{1,2},){3}\d{1,2}$
Try this
I have an string of an email that looks like "<luke#example.com>"
I would like to use regex for deleting "<" and ">", so I wanted something like
"<luke#example.com>".sub /<>/, ""
The problem is quite clear, /<>/ doesn't wrap what I want. I tried with different regex, but I don't know how to choose < AND >, it is there any and operator where I can say: "wrap this and this"?
As written, your regex matches the literal substring "<>" only. You need to use [] to make them a character class so that they're matched individually, and gsub to replace all matches:
"<luke#example.com>".gsub(/[<>]/, "") # => "luke#example.com"
"<luke#example.com>".gsub /[<>]/, ""
http://regex101.com/r/hP3sY2
If you only ever want to strip the < and > from the start and end only, you can use this:
'<luke#example.com>'.sub(/\A<([^<>]+)>\z/, '\1')
You don't need, nor should you use, a regex.
string[1..-2]
is enough.
Apparently I still don't understand exactly how it works ...
Here is my problem: I'm trying to match numbers in strings such as:
910 -6.258000 6.290
That string should gives me an array like this:
[910, -6.2580000, 6.290]
while the string
blabla9999 some more text 1.1
should not be matched.
The regex I'm trying to use is
/([-]?\d+[.]?\d+)/
but it doesn't do exactly that. Could someone help me ?
It would be great if the answer could clarify the use of the parenthesis in the matching.
Here's a pattern that works:
/^[^\d]+?\d+[^\d]+?\d+[\.]?\d+$/
Note that [^\d]+ means at least one non digit character.
On second thought, here's a more generic solution that doesn't need to deal with regular expressions:
str.gsub(/[^\d.-]+/, " ").split.collect{|d| d.to_f}
Example:
str = "blabla9999 some more text -1.1"
Parsed:
[9999.0, -1.1]
The parenthesis have different meanings.
[] defines a character class, that means one character is matched that is part of this class
() is defining a capturing group, the string that is matched by this part in brackets is put into a variable.
You did not define any anchors so your pattern will match your second string
blabla9999 some more text 1.1
^^^^ here ^^^ and here
Maybe this is more what you wanted
^(\s*-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?\s*)+$
See it here on Regexr
^ anchors the pattern to the start of the string and $ to the end.
it allows Whitespace \s before and after the number and an optional fraction part (?:\.\d+)? This kind of pattern will be matched at least once.
maybe /(-?\d+(.\d+)?)+/
irb(main):010:0> "910 -6.258000 6.290".scan(/(\-?\d+(\.\d+)?)+/).map{|x| x[0]}
=> ["910", "-6.258000", "6.290"]
str = " 910 -6.258000 6.290"
str.scan(/-?\d+\.?\d+/).map(&:to_f)
# => [910.0, -6.258, 6.29]
If you don't want integers to be converted to floats, try this:
str = " 910 -6.258000 6.290"
str.scan(/-?\d+\.?\d+/).map do |ns|
ns[/\./] ? ns.to_f : ns.to_i
end
# => [910, -6.258, 6.29]