Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Regex: match double OR single quote
398 views
Skip to first unread message
Jason C
Jul 12, 2012, 6:12:33 PM7/12/12
to
I'm struggling with what I thought was a simple thing, and I'm hoping you guys can help.
I have a string that may contain a ", ', or neither. So, I wrote this in the regex:
["|']*
But this doesn't match anything.
Here's the complete code:
# $text comes from a form, so this is just a sample
$text = <<EOF;
<img src="<a href='http://www.example.com/whatever.jpg'
target='_new'>
http://www.example.com/whatever.jpg</a>"
width="300" height="300" border="0">
EOF
# Regex; line breaks added here for the sake of reading
$text =~ s/<img(.*?)src=
["|']*\s*<a.*? href=
["|']*\s*(.*?)
["|']*.*?>(.*?)<\/a>
["|']*(.*?)>
/<img src="$2"$1$4>/gsi;
If I change ["|']* to whatever I have hard coded, then it works fine, so I know the issue is with that pattern. So how do I correctly match them?
I have a string that may contain a ", ', or neither. So, I wrote this in the regex:
["|']*
But this doesn't match anything.
Here's the complete code:
# $text comes from a form, so this is just a sample
$text = <<EOF;
<img src="<a href='http://www.example.com/whatever.jpg'
target='_new'>
http://www.example.com/whatever.jpg</a>"
width="300" height="300" border="0">
EOF
# Regex; line breaks added here for the sake of reading
$text =~ s/<img(.*?)src=
["|']*\s*<a.*? href=
["|']*\s*(.*?)
["|']*.*?>(.*?)<\/a>
["|']*(.*?)>
/<img src="$2"$1$4>/gsi;
If I change ["|']* to whatever I have hard coded, then it works fine, so I know the issue is with that pattern. So how do I correctly match them?
Ben Morrow
Jul 12, 2012, 7:46:04 PM7/12/12
to
Quoth Jason C <jwca...@gmail.com>:
> I'm struggling with what I thought was a simple thing, and I'm hoping
> you guys can help.
>
> I have a string that may contain a ", ', or neither. So, I wrote this in
> the regex:
>
> ["|']*
You don't use | like that inside a character class. None of the normal
> you guys can help.
>
> I have a string that may contain a ", ', or neither. So, I wrote this in
> the regex:
>
> ["|']*
regex special characters have their special meanings, and the class
matches any one of the characters listed, so that class will match any
of ", ', or |.
You also probably don't want that *. AFAICS you want to match exactly
one quote, of either type, so you just want ["'].
(If you wanted to get fancy you could insist on matching quotes using \1
backreferences, but you may not think it's worth it.)
> But this doesn't match anything.
>
> Here's the complete code:
>
> # $text comes from a form, so this is just a sample
> $text = <<EOF;
> <img src="<a href='http://www.example.com/whatever.jpg'
> target='_new'>
> http://www.example.com/whatever.jpg</a>"
> width="300" height="300" border="0">
> EOF
>
> # Regex; line breaks added here for the sake of reading
need to remember to escape spaces when you do want them to match
literally.
> $text =~ s/<img(.*?)src=
> ["|']*\s*<a.*? href=
> ["|']*\s*(.*?)
> ["|']*.*?>(.*?)<\/a>
> ["|']*(.*?)>
> /<img src="$2"$1$4>/gsi;
>
> If I change ["|']* to whatever I have hard coded, then it works fine, so
> I know the issue is with that pattern. So how do I correctly match them?
*something*, just not what you wanted it to match. $text ends up as
<img src=""
width="300" height="300" border="0">
which is happening because the second uncaptured .*? is picking up all
the text you wanted to get in $2. Everything between the 'href=' and the
'>' is *ed, so it can all match nothing if it wants to. The .*? in $2
wants to match as little as possible, and so does the one before the >,
and when two sections of the pattern are 'fighting' over what to match
the one earlier in the pattern wins.
In general, .*? is not a panacea in situations like this. You would
probably be better off using negated character classes, something like
$text =~ s{
<img ([^>]*) src=["'] \s*
<a [^>]* [ ] href=["'] \s* ([^'"]*) ["'] [^>]* >
([^<]*) </a>
['"] ([^>]*) >
}{<img src="$2"$1$4>}gsix;
(I've used /x to format it decently, which means the literal space needs
to be escaped somehow. I usually prefer putting it in a character class
to backslashing it, though either would work.)
Here each negated character class stops the match running off past the
next thing, so for instance $2 can't run past the end of the quotes.
This isn't perfect: it will not match at all if there are other tags
inside the <a>, and it's not terribly easy to modify it so it will.
(While it is possible to correctly match arbitrary HTML with Perl
regexes, it isn't entirely straightforward.)
Ben
Jason C
Jul 12, 2012, 9:21:06 PM7/12/12
to
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 7:46:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Morrow wrote:
<snip>
> <a [^>]* [ ] href=["'] \s* ([^'"]*) ["'] [^>]* >
> ([^<]*) </a>
> ['"] ([^>]*) >
> }{<img src="$2"$1$4>}gsix;
>
> (I've used /x to format it decently, which means the literal space needs
> This isn't perfect: it will not match at all if there are other tags
> inside the <a>, and it's not terribly easy to modify it so it will.
>
> Ben
Perfect! I actually did mean for the " or ' to be optional, though (it's possible to have references without a quote), so I had to add the * back in, but the idea of negated characters was exactly what I needed.
For the sake of my own knowledge, does the pattern:
/img([^>])src/
translate to "img, not followed by a >, and followed by src", or "img, followed by anything except a >, and followed by src"?
<snip>
> In general, .*? is not a panacea in situations like this. You would
> probably be better off using negated character classes, something like
>
> $text =~ s{
> <img ([^>]*) src=["'] \s*
> probably be better off using negated character classes, something like
>
> $text =~ s{
> <a [^>]* [ ] href=["'] \s* ([^'"]*) ["'] [^>]* >
> ([^<]*) </a>
> ['"] ([^>]*) >
> }{<img src="$2"$1$4>}gsix;
>
> (I've used /x to format it decently, which means the literal space needs
> to be escaped somehow. I usually prefer putting it in a character class
> to backslashing it, though either would work.)
>
> Here each negated character class stops the match running off past the
> next thing, so for instance $2 can't run past the end of the quotes.
> to backslashing it, though either would work.)
>
> Here each negated character class stops the match running off past the
> This isn't perfect: it will not match at all if there are other tags
> inside the <a>, and it's not terribly easy to modify it so it will.
> (While it is possible to correctly match arbitrary HTML with Perl
> regexes, it isn't entirely straightforward.)
>
> Ben
Perfect! I actually did mean for the " or ' to be optional, though (it's possible to have references without a quote), so I had to add the * back in, but the idea of negated characters was exactly what I needed.
For the sake of my own knowledge, does the pattern:
/img([^>])src/
translate to "img, not followed by a >, and followed by src", or "img, followed by anything except a >, and followed by src"?
Ben Morrow
Jul 13, 2012, 5:49:03 AM7/13/12
to
Quoth Jason C <jwca...@gmail.com>:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 7:46:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Morrow wrote:
> <snip>
> > In general, .*? is not a panacea in situations like this. You would
> > probably be better off using negated character classes, something like
> >
> > $text =~ s{
> > <img ([^>]*) src=["'] \s*
^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> <snip>
> > In general, .*? is not a panacea in situations like this. You would
> > probably be better off using negated character classes, something like
> >
> > $text =~ s{
> > <img ([^>]*) src=["'] \s*
If you're going to be posting to programming newsgroups you need to find
a way to stop that from happening. Dropping Google in favour of a real
newsreader might be a good start.
> Perfect! I actually did mean for the " or ' to be optional, though (it's
> possible to have references without a quote), so I had to add the * back
> in, but the idea of negated characters was exactly what I needed.
<a href=""""""one two three"""""">
> For the sake of my own knowledge, does the pattern:
>
> /img([^>])src/
>
> translate to "img, not followed by a >, and followed by src", or "img,
> followed by anything except a >, and followed by src"?
Ben
ccc31807
Jul 16, 2012, 1:20:07 PM7/16/12
to
On Jul 12, 6:12 pm, Jason C <jwcarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm struggling with what I thought was a simple thing, and I'm hoping you guys can help.
>
> I have a string that may contain a ", ', or neither. So, I wrote this in the regex:
If you process CSV files, this can get real hairy. CSV files can
> I'm struggling with what I thought was a simple thing, and I'm hoping you guys can help.
>
> I have a string that may contain a ", ', or neither. So, I wrote this in the regex:
contain one or more double quotes, one or more single quotes, pairs of
double and/or single quotes, and commas embedded within quotation
marks. The best help, and one that I strongly recommend to you, is to
examine the Perl source for one or more of the CSV modules. The
contain regular expressions for dis-entangling CSV strings, and trying
to understand how they work will strengthen your RE chops.
I normally follow two strategies when faced with this situation.
First, is to replace all non-delimiting or non-qulaifying quotation
marks with some unusual character that's unlikely to appear in the
string, such as
s/["']/#/g
and then later, after I've processed the string, reverse the change
like this
s\s/#/'/g
which converts all the quotations to single quotes, which may or may
not work for you (it normally works for me).
Or, I escape the quotations with either single or double backslashes,
depending on whatever subsequent processing you plan to do, like this
s/(["'])/\$1/g
This has the advantage of preserving the kinds of quotes.
I'm posting from memory so the above might have errors, but you
understand the idea.
In practice, I find that single quotes turn up in the oddest places,
where you would never expect them. For this reason, when I process a
string, out of pure defensiveness, I usually escape quotes (as well as
some other potentially trouble makers).
CC
Jason C
Jul 18, 2012, 12:12:26 AM7/18/12
to
On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:49:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Morrow wrote:
> > > $text =~ s{
> > > &lt;img ([^&gt;]*) src=[&quot;&#39;] \s*
> ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you're going to be posting to programming newsgroups you need to find
I guess I'll have to grab a copy of Forte Agent or something...
> 'Optional' is ?, not *. Presumably you don't want to allow
Maybe I really am confused. Regex isn't really my strong point, though, so I appreciate the clarification.
I thought that ? made it not greedy; meaning, instead of catching the next reference, it would find the last reference.
Example:
$text = "Example >->->";
$text = s/>?//;
would return:
Example ->->
But this:
$text = "Example >->->";
$text = s/>//;
would return:
Example --
Then, I thought that * meant "0 or more times", which would essentially make it optional?
> > > $text =~ s{
> > > &lt;img ([^&gt;]*) src=[&quot;&#39;] \s*
> ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you're going to be posting to programming newsgroups you need to find
> a way to stop that from happening. Dropping Google in favour of a real
> newsreader might be a good start.
Blech, why did Google start doing that?? I really don't use NG's that often, but those substitutions sure make it hard to talk about regex!
> newsreader might be a good start.
I guess I'll have to grab a copy of Forte Agent or something...
> 'Optional' is ?, not *. Presumably you don't want to allow
I thought that ? made it not greedy; meaning, instead of catching the next reference, it would find the last reference.
Example:
$text = "Example >->->";
$text = s/>?//;
would return:
Example ->->
But this:
$text = "Example >->->";
$text = s/>//;
would return:
Example --
Then, I thought that * meant "0 or more times", which would essentially make it optional?
Ben Morrow
Jul 18, 2012, 4:25:37 AM7/18/12
to
Quoth Jason C <jwca...@gmail.com>:
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:49:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Morrow wrote:
>
> > 'Optional' is ?, not *. Presumably you don't want to allow
>
> Maybe I really am confused. Regex isn't really my strong point, though,
> so I appreciate the clarification.
>
> I thought that ? made it not greedy; meaning, instead of catching the
> next reference, it would find the last reference.
? does sometimes make something not greedy, but that isn't what 'not
>
> > 'Optional' is ?, not *. Presumably you don't want to allow
>
> Maybe I really am confused. Regex isn't really my strong point, though,
> so I appreciate the clarification.
>
> I thought that ? made it not greedy; meaning, instead of catching the
> next reference, it would find the last reference.
greedy' means.
Suppose I have a section of pattern, A. Then
/A/ matches A once
/A?/ matches A 0-or-1 times
/A*/ matches A 0-or-more times
/A+/ matches A 1-or-more times
Greedyness controls what to do when there is a choice about how many
times to match. The greedy quantifiers above will all match as much as
possible whenever there's a choice. These non-greedy quantifiers:
/A??/ matches A 0-or-1 times, not greedy
/A*?/ matches A 0-or-more times, not greedy
/A+?/ matches A 1-or-more times, not greedy
will all instead match as *little* as possible.
> Then, I thought that * meant "0 or more times", which would essentially
> make it optional?
I believe you want 0-or-1-times rather than 0-or-more-times.
Ben
Rainer Weikusat
Jul 18, 2012, 8:26:17 AM7/18/12
to
Ben Morrow <b...@morrow.me.uk> writes:
[...]
>> Then, I thought that * meant "0 or more times", which would essentially
>> make it optional?
>
> Well, yes, in a sense. 'Optional' is ambiguous; in this case, as I said,
> I believe you want 0-or-1-times rather than 0-or-more-times.
I don't think so. ? is equivalent to the quantifier {0,1}, * is
equivalent to the quantifier {0,}. Both imply that the re they apply
to is optional for success of the match (not matching it at all is
fine). The difference is on the right side of the comma: The first one
may match at most once, the second one represents an unbounded
sequence.
[...]
>> Then, I thought that * meant "0 or more times", which would essentially
>> make it optional?
>
> Well, yes, in a sense. 'Optional' is ambiguous; in this case, as I said,
> I believe you want 0-or-1-times rather than 0-or-more-times.
equivalent to the quantifier {0,}. Both imply that the re they apply
to is optional for success of the match (not matching it at all is
fine). The difference is on the right side of the comma: The first one
may match at most once, the second one represents an unbounded
sequence.
Ben Morrow
Jul 18, 2012, 10:10:18 AM7/18/12
to
Quoth Rainer Weikusat <rwei...@mssgmbh.com>:
> Ben Morrow <b...@morrow.me.uk> writes:
>
[I recommended the OP use ? instead of *]
Ben
Shmuel Metz
Jul 19, 2012, 10:49:05 AM7/19/12
to
In <877gu1n...@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>, on 07/18/2012
Because you didn't read Ben's text.
>? is equivalent to the quantifier {0,1}, * is
>equivalent to the quantifier {0,}.
Which doesn't conflict with what Ben wrote.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Because you didn't read Ben's text.
>? is equivalent to the quantifier {0,1}, * is
>equivalent to the quantifier {0,}.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
0 new messages