This question already has answers here:
How can I convert ereg expressions to preg in PHP?
(4 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I need to know what this line of code does, tried to figure it out because i have to build it with preg_match() but I didn't understand it completely:
ereg("([0-9]{1,2}).([0-9]{1,2}).([0-9]{4})", $date)
I know it checks a date, but i don't know in which way.
thanks for some help
Let's break this down:
([0-9]{1,2})
This looks for numbers zero through nine (- indicates a range when used in brackets []) and there can be 1 or two of them.
.
This looks for any single character
([0-9]{1,2})
This looks for numbers zero through nine and there can be 1 or two of them (again)
.
This looks for any single character (again)
([0-9]{4})
This looks for numbers zero through nine and there must be four of them in a row
So it is looking for a date in any of the following formats:
04 18 1973
04-18-1973
04/18/1973
04.18.1973
More will fit that pattern so it isn't a very good regex for what it is supposed to validate against. There are lots of sample regex patterns for matting dates in this format so if you google it you'll have a PCRE in no time.
It's a relatively simple regular expression (regex). If you're going to be working with regex, then I suggest taking a bit of time to learn the syntax. A good starting place to learn is http://regular-expressions.info.
"Regular expressions" or "regex" is a pattern matching language used for searching through strings. There are a number of dialects, which are mostly fairly similar but have some differences. PHP started out with the ereg() family of functions using one particular dialect and then switched to the preg_xx() functions to use a slightly different regex dialect.
There are some differences in syntax between the two, which it is helpful to learn, but they're fairly minor. And in fact the good news for you is that the pattern here is pretty much identical between the two.
Beyond the patterns themselves, the only other major difference you need to know about is that patterns in preg_match() must have a pair of delimiting characters at either end of the pattern string. The most commonly used characters for this are slashes (/).
So in this case, all you need to do is swap ereg for preg_match, and add the slashes to either end of the pattern:
$result = preg_match("/([0-9]{1,2}).([0-9]{1,2}).([0-9]{4})/", $date);
^ ^
slash here and here
It would still help to get an understanding of what the pattern is doing, but for a quick win, that's probably all you need to do in this case. Other cases may be more complex, but most will be as simple as that.
Go read the regular-expressions.info site I linked earlier though; it will help you.
One thing I would add, however, is that the pattern given here is actually quite poorly written. It is intending to match a date string, but will match a lot of things that it probably didn't intend to.
You could fix it up by finding a better regex expression for matching dates, but it is quite possible that the code could be written without needing regex at all -- PHP has some perfectly good date handling functionality built into it. You'd need to consider the code around it and understand what it's doing, but it's perfectly possible that the whole thing could be replaced with something like this:
$dateObject = DateTime::CreateFromFormat($date, 'd.M.Y');
It looks like it would be pretty much agnostic in its matching.
You could interpret it either as mm.dd.yyyy or dd.mm.yyyy. I would consider modifying it if you were in fact trying to match/verify a date as 00.00.0000 would be a match but is an invalid data, outside of possible historic context.
Edit: I forget '.' in this case would match any character without escaping.
this do the same, i have only replace [0-9] by \d, and the dot (that match all) by \D (a non digit, but can replace it by \. or [.- ])
preg_match("~\d{2}\D\d{2}\D\d{4}~", $date)
Related
This question already has answers here:
My regex is matching too much. How do I make it stop? [duplicate]
(5 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I have this RegEx:
('.+')
It has to match character literals like in C. For example, if I have 'a' b 'a' it should match the a's and the ''s around them.
However, it also matches the b also (it should not), probably because it is, strictly speaking, also between ''s.
Here is a screenshot of how it goes wrong (I use this for syntax highlighting):
I'm fairly new to regular expressions. How can I tell the regex not to match this?
It is being greedy and matching the first apostrophe and the last one and everything in between.
This should match anything that isn't an apostrophe.
('[^']+')
Another alternative is to try non-greedy matches.
('.+?')
Have you tried a non-greedy version, e.g. ('.+?')?
There are usually two modes of matching (or two sets of quantifiers), maximal (greedy) and minimal (non-greedy). The first will result in the longest possible match, the latter in the shortest. You can read about it (although in perl context) in the Perl Cookbook (Section 6.15).
Try:
('[^']+')
The ^ means include every character except the ones in the square brackets. This way, it won't match 'a' b 'a' because there's a ' in between, so instead it'll give both instances of 'a'
You need to escape the qutoes:
\'[^\']+\'
Edit: Hmm, we'll I suppose this answer depends on what lang/system you're using.
This question already has an answer here:
Simple AlphaNumeric Regex (single spacing) without Catastrophic Backtracking
(1 answer)
Closed 4 years ago.
I'm trying to extract all the words between two phrases using the following regex:
\b(?:item\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,2}?(?:1|one)\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?business)\b(.*)\b(?:item\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,2}?(?:3|three)\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?legal\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?proceedings)\b
The documents I'm running this regex on are 10-K filings. The filings are too long to post here (see regex101 url below for example), but basically they are something like this:
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
lots of words
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
lots of words
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
I want to extract all the words between ITEM 1 and ITEM 3. Note that the subtitles for each ITEM may be slightly different for each 10-K filing, hence I'm allowing for a few words between each word.
I keep getting catastrophic backtracking error, and I cannot figure out why. For example, please see https://regex101.com/r/zgTiyb/1.
What am I doing wrong?
Catastrophic backtracking has almost one main reason:
A possible match is found but can't finish.
You made too many positions available for regex to try. This hits backtracking limit on PCRE. A quick work around would be removing the only dot-star in regex in order to replace it with a restrictive quantifier i.e.
.{0,200}
See live demo here
But the better approach is re-constructing the regular expression:
\bitem\b.*?\b(?:1|one)\b(*COMMIT)\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,2}?business\b\h*\R+(?:(?!item\h+(?:3|three)\b)[\s\S])*+item\h+(?:3|three)\b\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?legal\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?proceedings\b
See live demo here
Your own regex needs ~45K steps on given input string to find those two matches. In contrast, this modified regex needs ~8K steps to accomplish the task. That's a huge improvement.
The latter doesn't need s flag (and it shouldn't be enabled). I used (*COMMIT) backtracking verb to cause an early failure if a possible match is found but is likely to not finish.
#Sebastian Proske's solution matches three sub-strings but I don't think the third match is an expected match. This huge third match is the only reason for your regex to break.
Please read this answer to have a better insight into this problem.
This isn't really catastrophic backtracking, just a whole lot of text and a comparedly low backtracking limit in regex101. In this scenario the use of .* isn't optimal, as it will match the whole remainder of the textfile once it is reached and then backtrack character after character to match the parts after it - which means a lot of characters to process.
Seems you can stick to \w+\W+ at that place as well and use lazy matching instead of greedy to get your result, like
\b(?:item\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,2}?(?:1|one)\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?business)\b\W+(?:\w+\W+)*?\b(?:item\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,2}?(?:3|three)\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?legal\W+(?:\w+\W+){0,3}?proceedings)\b
Note that the pcre engine optimizes (?:\w+\W+) to (?>\w++\W++) thus working by word-no-word-chunks instead of single characters.
I know that I'd likely hear "Don't parse HTML with regex", so let me say that this question is just academic at this point because I actually solved my problem using the DOM, but on my road to a solution, I ran across this pattern that works on the gskinner website, but I can't figure out how to make it work in PHP preg_match().
(?<=href\=")[^]+?(?=")
I think that the [^] is causing the problem, but I'm not certain what to do about it.
What it is intended to do is pull the substring from between the quotes of an href. (One would expect it to be a web-address or at least part of one.)
[^] is a difficult construct. Basically it is an empty negated character class. But what should it match? That depends on the implementation. Some languages are interpreting it as negation of nothing, so it will match every character, that is what gskinner (means ActionScript 3) seems to be doing.
I would never use this, because it is ambiguous.
The most readable way is to use ., the meta character that matches every character (without newlines), if newlines are also wanted, just add the modifier s that enables the dotall mode, this would be exactly what you wanted to achieve with [^].
A workaround that is sometimes used is to use a character class something like this [\s\S] or [\w\W]. Those will also match every character (including newlines), because they are matching some predefined character class and their negation.
For some reason I always get stuck making anything past extremely basic regular expressions.
I'm trying to make a regular expression that kind of looks like a URL. I only want basic checking.
I would like it to match the following patterns where X is "something".
X://X.X
X://X.X... etc.
X.X
X.X... etc
If the string contains one of these patterns, it is sufficient checking for me. This way a url like www.example.com:8888 will still match. I have tried many different REGEX combinations with preg_match and cannot seem to get any to behave the way I want it to. I have consulted many other related REGEX questions on SO but my readings have not helped me.
Any help? I will be happy to provide more information if you would like but I don't know what else you would need.
It takes practice but here is one that I made using a regex tester (http://www.regextester.com/) to check my pattern:
^.+(:\/\/|\.)([a-zA-Z0-9]+\.)+.+
My approach is to slowly build my pattern from the beginning and add on one piece at a time. This cheatsheet is extremely helpful for remembering http://www.cheatography.com/davechild/cheat-sheets/regular-expressions/ what everything is.
Basically the pattern starts at the beginning of the string and checks for any characters followed by either :// or . then checks for groupings of letters and numbers followed by a . ending with any number of characters.
The pattern could probably be improved with groupings to not pass on invalid characters. But this one was quick and dirty. You could replace the first and last . with the characters that would be valid.
UPDATE
Per the comments here is an updated pattern:
^.+?(:\/\/|\.)?([a-zA-Z0-9]+?\.)+.+
/^(.+:\/\/)?[^.]+\.[^.\/]+([.\/][^.\/]+)*$/
1. (.*?)
2. (*)
3. #regex#
4. /regex/
A. What do the above symbols mean?
B. What is the different between # and /?
I have the cheat-sheet, but didn't full get it yet. What i know * gets
all characters, so what .*? is for!
The above patterns are used in PHP preg_match and preg_replace.
. matches any character (roughly).
*? is a so-called quantifier, matching the previous token at least zero times (and only as often as needed to complete a match – it's lazy, hence the ?).
(...) create a capturing group you can refer to in either the regex or the match. They also are used for limiting the reach of the | alternation to only parts of the regex (just like parentheses in math make precedence clear).
/.../ and #...# are delimiters for the entire regex, in PHP at least. Technically they're not part of the regex syntax. What delimiter you use is up to you (but I think you can't use \), and mostly changes what characters you need to escape in the regex. So / is a bad choice when you're matching URIs that might contain a lot of slashes. Compare the following two varaints for finding end-of-line comments in C++ style:
preg_match('/\/\/.*$/', $text);
preg_match('#//.*$#', $text);
The latter is easier to read as you don't have to escape slashes within the regex itself. # or # are commonly used as delimiter because they stands out and aren't that frequent in text, but you can use whatever you like.
Technically you don't need this delimiter at all. This is probably mostly a remnant of PHP's Perl heritage (in Perl regexes are delimited, but are not contained in a string). Other languages that use strings (because they have no native regex literals), such as Java, C# or PowerShell do well without the delimiter. In PHP you can add options after the closing delimiter, such as /a/i which matches a or A (case-insensitively), but the regex (?i)a does exactly the same and doesn't need delimiters.
And next time you take the time to read through Regular-Expressions.info, it's an awesome reference on regex basics and advcanced topics, explaining many things very well and thoroughly. And please also take a look at the PHP documentation in this regard.
Well, please stick to one actual question per ... question.
This is an answer to question 3+4, as the other questions have allready been answered.
Regexpes are generally delimited by /, e.g. /abc123/ or /foo|bar/i. In php, you can use whatever character for this you want. You are not limited to /, i.e. you can use e.g. # or %, #/usr/local/bin#.