I'm trying to write a regular expression to match amounts. In my case, what I need is that either the amount should be a positive integer or if the decimal is used, it must be followed by one or two integers. So basically, the following are valid amounts:
34000
345.5
876.45
What I wrote was this: /[0-9]+(\.[0-9]{1,2}){0,1}/
My thinking was that by using parenthesis like so: (\.[0-9]{1,2}), I would be able to bundle the whole "decimal plus one or two integers" part. But it isn't happening. Among other problems, this regex is allowing stuff like 245. and 345.567 to slip through. :(
Help, please!
Your regular expression is good, but you need to match the beginning and end of the string. Otherwise, your regex can match only a portion of the string and still (correctly) return a match. To match the beginning of the string, use ^, for the end, use $.
Update: as Avinash has noted, you can replace {0,1} with ?. JS supports \d for digits, so the regex can be further simplified
Finally, since if are only testing against a regex, you can use a non-capturing group ( (?:...) instead of (...)), which offers better performance.
original:
/[0-9]+(\.[0-9]{1,2}){0,1}/.test('345.567')
Fixed, and faster ;)
/^\d+(?:\.\d{1,2})?$/.test('345.567')
Related
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?)
I have a regex which finds all kind of money denoted in dollars,like $290,USD240,$234.45,234.5$,234.6usd
(\$)[0-9]+\.?([0-9]*)|usd+[0-9]+\.?([0-9]*)|[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*usd|[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*(\$)
This seems to works, but how can i avoid the complexity in my regex?
It is possible to make the regex a bit shorter by collapsing the currency indicators:
You can say USD OR $ amount instead of USD amount OR $ amount. This results in the following regex:
((\$|usd)[0-9]+\.?([0-9]*))|([0-9]+\.?[0-9]*(\$|usd))
Im not sure if you'll find this less complex, but at least it's easier to read because it's shorter
The character set [0-9] can also be replaced by \d -- the character class which matches any digit -- making the regex even shorter.
Doing this, the regex will look as follows:
((\$|usd)\d+\.?\d*)|(\d+\.?\d*(\$|usd))
Update:
According to #Toto this regex would be more performant using non-capturing groups (also removed the not-necessary capture group as pointed out by #Simon MᶜKenzie):
(?:\$|usd)\d+\.?\d*|\d+\.?\d*(?:\$|usd)
$.0 like amounts are not matched by the regex as #Gangnus pointed out. I updated the regex to fix this:
((\$|usd)((\d+\.?\d*)|(\.\d+)))|(((\d+\.?\d*)|(\.\d+))(\$|usd))
Note that I changed \d+\.?\d* into ((\d+\.?\d*)|(\.\d+)): It now either matches one or more digits, optionally followed by a dot, followed by zero or more digits; OR a dot followed by one or more digits.
Without unnecessary capturing groups and using non-capturing groups:
(?:\$|usd)(?:\d+\.?\d*|\.\d+)|(?:\d+\.?\d*|\.\d+)(?:\$|usd)
Try this
^(?:\$|usd)?(?:\d+\.?\d*)(?:\$|usd)?$
Reducing the complexity you are reducing the correctness. The following regex works correctly, but even it doesn't take lowcase. (but that could be managed by a key). All other current answers here simply haven't the correct substring for the decimal number.
^\s*(?:(?:(?:-?(?:usd|\$)|(?:usd|\$)-)(?:(?:0|[1-9]\d*)?(?:\.\d+)?(?<=\d)))|(?:-?(?:(?:0|[1-9]\d*)?(?:\.\d+)?(?<=\d))(?:usd|\$)))\s*$
Look here at the test results.
Make a correct line and only after that try to shorten it.
Let's say that I have a given string in javascript - e.g., var s = "{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText"; It may be very long (e.g., 25,000+ chars).
NOTE: I'm using "SomeText" here as a placeholder to refer to any number of characters of plain text. In other words, "SomeText" could be any plain text string which doesn't include {{1}} or {{2}}. So the above example could be var s = "{{1}}Hi there. This is a string with one { curly bracket{{2}}Oh, very nice to meet you. I also have one } curly bracket!"; And that would be perfectly valid.
The rules for it are simple:
It does not need to have any instances of {{2}}. However, if it does, then after that instance we cannot encounter another {{2}} unless we find a {{1}} first.
Valid examples:
"{{2}}SomeText"
"{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText"
"{{1}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText"
"{{1}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText"
"{{1}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText"
"{{1}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText"
etc...
Invalid examples:
"{{2}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText"
"{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText"
"{{1}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText{{2}}SomeText{{1}}SomeText"
etc...
This seems like a relatively easy problem to solve - and indeed I could easily solve it without regular expressions, but I'm keen to learn how to do something like this with regular expressions. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure if "conditionals and lookaheads" is a correct description of the issue in this case.
NOTE: If a workable solution is presented that doesn't involve "conditionals and lookaheads" then I will edit the title.
It's probably easier to invert the condition. Try to match any text that contains two consecutive instances of {{2}}, and if it doesn't match that, it's good.
Using this strategy, your pattern can be as simple as:
/{\{2}}([^{]*){\{2}}/
Demonstration
This will match a literal {{2}}, followed by zero or more characters other than {, followed by a literal {{2}}.
Notice that the second { needs to be escaped, otherwise, the regex engine will consider the {2} as to be a quantifier on the previous { (i.e. {{2} matches exactly two { characters).
Just in case you need to allow characters like {, and between the two {{2}}, you can use a pattern like this:
/{\{2}}((?!{\{1}}).)*{\{2}}/
Demonstration
This will match a literal {{2}}, followed by zero or more of any character, so long as those characters create a sequence like {{1}}, followed by a literal {{2}}.
(({{1}}SomeText)+({{2}}SomeText)?)*
Broken down:
({{1}}SomeText)+ - 1 to many {{1}} instances (greedy match)
({{2}}SomeText)? - followed by an optional {{2}} instance
Then the whole thing is wrapped in ()* such that the sequence can appear 0 to many times in a row.
No conditionals or lookaheads needed.
You said you can have one instance of {2} first, right?
^(.(?!{2}))(.{2})?(?!{2})((.(?!{2})){1}(.(?!{2}))({2})?)$
Note if {2} is one letter replace all dots with [^{2}]
The title might seem a bit recursive, and indeed it is.
I am working on a Javascript which can highlight/color Javascript code displayed in HTML. Thus, in the Internet Browser, comments will be turned green, definitions (for, if, while, etc.) will be turned a dark blue and italic, numbers will be red, and so on for other elements. However, the coloring is not all that important.
I am trying to figure out two different regular expressions which have started to cause a minor headache.
1. Finding a regular expression using a regular expression
I want to find regular expressions within the script-tags of HTML using a Javascript, such as:
match(/findthis/i);
, where the regex part of course is "/findthis/i".
The rules are as follows:
Finding multiple occurrences (/g) is not important.
It must be on the same line (not /m).
Caseinsensitive (/i).
If a backward slash (ignore character) is followed directly by a forward slash, "/", the forward slash is part of the expression - not an escape character. E.g.: /itdoesntstop\/untilnow:/
Two forward slashes right next to each other (//) is: (A) At the beginning: Not a regex; it's a comment. (B) Later on: First slash is the end of the regex and the second slash is nothing but a character.
Regex continues until the line breaks or end of input (\n|$), or the escape character (second forward slash which complies with rule 4) is encountered. However, also as long as only alphabetic characters are encountered, following the second forward slash, they are considered part of the regex. E.g.: /aregex/allthisispartoftheregex
So far what I've got is this:
'\\/(?:[^\\/\\\\]|\\/\\*)*\\/([a-zA-Z]*)?'
However, it isn't consistent. Any suggestions?
2. Find digits (alphanumeric, floating) using a regular expression
Finding digits on their own is simple. However, finding floating numbers (with multiple periods) and letters including underscore is more of a challenge.
All of the below are considered numbers (a new number starts after each space):
3 3.1 3.1.4 3a 3.A 3.a1 3_.1
The rules:
Finding multiple occurrences (/g) is not important.
It must be on the same line (not /m).
Caseinsensitive (/i).
A number must begin with a digit. However, the number can be preceeded or followed by a non-word (\W) character. E.g.: "=9.9;" where "9.9" is the actual number. "a9" is not a number. A period before the number, ".9", is not considered part of the number and thus the actual number is "9".
Allowed characters: [a-zA-Z0-9_.]
What I've got:
'(^|\\W)\\d([a-zA-Z0-9_.]*?)(?=([^a-zA-Z0-9_.]|$))'
It doesn't work quite the way I want it.
For the first part, I think you are quite close. Here is what I would use (as a regex literal, to avoid all the double escapes):
/\/(?:[^\/\\\n\r]|\\.)+\/([a-z]*)/i
I don't know what you intended with your second alternative after the character class. But here the second alternative is used to consume backslashes and anything that follows them. The last part is important, so that you can recognize the regex ending in something like this: /backslash\\/. And the ? at the end of your regex was redundant. Otherwise this should be fine.
Test it here.
Your second regex is just fine for your specification. There are a few redundant elements though. The main thing you might want to do is capture everything but the possible first character:
/(?:^|\W)(\d[\w.]*)/i
Now the actual number (without the first character) will be in capturing group 1. Note that I removed the ungreediness and the lookahead, because greediness alone does exactly the same.
Test it here.
I'm creating a javascript regex to match queries in a search engine string. I am having a problem with alternation. I have the following regex:
.*baidu.com.*[/?].*wd{1}=
I want to be able to match strings that have the string 'word' or 'qw' in addition to 'wd', but everything I try is unsuccessful. I thought I would be able to do something like the following:
.*baidu.com.*[/?].*[wd|word|qw]{1}=
but it does not seem to work.
replace [wd|word|qw] with (wd|word|qw) or (?:wd|word|qw).
[] denotes character sets, () denotes logical groupings.
Your expression:
.*baidu.com.*[/?].*[wd|word|qw]{1}=
does need a few changes, including [wd|word|qw] to (wd|word|qw) and getting rid of the redundant {1}, like so:
.*baidu.com.*[/?].*(wd|word|qw)=
But you also need to understand that the first part of your expression (.*baidu.com.*[/?].*) will match baidu.com hello what spelling/handle????????? or hbaidu-com/ or even something like lkas----jhdf lkja$##!3hdsfbaidugcomlaksjhdf.[($?lakshf, because the dot (.) matches any character except newlines... to match a literal dot, you have to escape it with a backslash (like \.)
There are several approaches you could take to match things in a URL, but we could help you more if you tell us what you are trying to do or accomplish - perhaps regex is not the best solution or (EDIT) only part of the best solution?