I know it's possible to match a word and then reverse the matches using other tools (e.g. grep -v). However, is it possible to match lines that do not contain a specific word, e.g. hede, using a regular expression?
Input:
hoho
hihi
haha
hede
Code:
grep "<Regex for 'doesn't contain hede'>" input
Desired output:
hoho
hihi
haha
The notion that regex doesn't support inverse matching is not entirely true. You can mimic this behavior by using negative look-arounds:
^((?!hede).)*$
The regex above will match any string, or line without a line break, not containing the (sub)string 'hede'. As mentioned, this is not something regex is "good" at (or should do), but still, it is possible.
And if you need to match line break chars as well, use the DOT-ALL modifier (the trailing s in the following pattern):
/^((?!hede).)*$/s
or use it inline:
/(?s)^((?!hede).)*$/
(where the /.../ are the regex delimiters, i.e., not part of the pattern)
If the DOT-ALL modifier is not available, you can mimic the same behavior with the character class [\s\S]:
/^((?!hede)[\s\S])*$/
Explanation
A string is just a list of n characters. Before, and after each character, there's an empty string. So a list of n characters will have n+1 empty strings. Consider the string "ABhedeCD":
┌──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┐
S = │e1│ A │e2│ B │e3│ h │e4│ e │e5│ d │e6│ e │e7│ C │e8│ D │e9│
└──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┘
index 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
where the e's are the empty strings. The regex (?!hede). looks ahead to see if there's no substring "hede" to be seen, and if that is the case (so something else is seen), then the . (dot) will match any character except a line break. Look-arounds are also called zero-width-assertions because they don't consume any characters. They only assert/validate something.
So, in my example, every empty string is first validated to see if there's no "hede" up ahead, before a character is consumed by the . (dot). The regex (?!hede). will do that only once, so it is wrapped in a group, and repeated zero or more times: ((?!hede).)*. Finally, the start- and end-of-input are anchored to make sure the entire input is consumed: ^((?!hede).)*$
As you can see, the input "ABhedeCD" will fail because on e3, the regex (?!hede) fails (there is "hede" up ahead!).
Note that the solution to does not start with “hede”:
^(?!hede).*$
is generally much more efficient than the solution to does not contain “hede”:
^((?!hede).)*$
The former checks for “hede” only at the input string’s first position, rather than at every position.
If you're just using it for grep, you can use grep -v hede to get all lines which do not contain hede.
ETA Oh, rereading the question, grep -v is probably what you meant by "tools options".
Answer:
^((?!hede).)*$
Explanation:
^the beginning of the string,
( group and capture to \1 (0 or more times (matching the most amount possible)),
(?! look ahead to see if there is not,
hede your string,
) end of look-ahead,
. any character except \n,
)* end of \1 (Note: because you are using a quantifier on this capture, only the LAST repetition of the captured pattern will be stored in \1)
$ before an optional \n, and the end of the string
The given answers are perfectly fine, just an academic point:
Regular Expressions in the meaning of theoretical computer sciences ARE NOT ABLE do it like this. For them it had to look something like this:
^([^h].*$)|(h([^e].*$|$))|(he([^h].*$|$))|(heh([^e].*$|$))|(hehe.+$)
This only does a FULL match. Doing it for sub-matches would even be more awkward.
If you want the regex test to only fail if the entire string matches, the following will work:
^(?!hede$).*
e.g. -- If you want to allow all values except "foo" (i.e. "foofoo", "barfoo", and "foobar" will pass, but "foo" will fail), use: ^(?!foo$).*
Of course, if you're checking for exact equality, a better general solution in this case is to check for string equality, i.e.
myStr !== 'foo'
You could even put the negation outside the test if you need any regex features (here, case insensitivity and range matching):
!/^[a-f]oo$/i.test(myStr)
The regex solution at the top of this answer may be helpful, however, in situations where a positive regex test is required (perhaps by an API).
FWIW, since regular languages (aka rational languages) are closed under complementation, it's always possible to find a regular expression (aka rational expression) that negates another expression. But not many tools implement this.
Vcsn supports this operator (which it denotes {c}, postfix).
You first define the type of your expressions: labels are letter (lal_char) to pick from a to z for instance (defining the alphabet when working with complementation is, of course, very important), and the "value" computed for each word is just a Boolean: true the word is accepted, false, rejected.
In Python:
In [5]: import vcsn
c = vcsn.context('lal_char(a-z), b')
c
Out[5]: {a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z} → 𝔹
then you enter your expression:
In [6]: e = c.expression('(hede){c}'); e
Out[6]: (hede)^c
convert this expression to an automaton:
In [7]: a = e.automaton(); a
finally, convert this automaton back to a simple expression.
In [8]: print(a.expression())
\e+h(\e+e(\e+d))+([^h]+h([^e]+e([^d]+d([^e]+e[^]))))[^]*
where + is usually denoted |, \e denotes the empty word, and [^] is usually written . (any character). So, with a bit of rewriting ()|h(ed?)?|([^h]|h([^e]|e([^d]|d([^e]|e.)))).*.
You can see this example here, and try Vcsn online there.
Here's a good explanation of why it's not easy to negate an arbitrary regex. I have to agree with the other answers, though: if this is anything other than a hypothetical question, then a regex is not the right choice here.
With negative lookahead, regular expression can match something not contains specific pattern. This is answered and explained by Bart Kiers. Great explanation!
However, with Bart Kiers' answer, the lookahead part will test 1 to 4 characters ahead while matching any single character. We can avoid this and let the lookahead part check out the whole text, ensure there is no 'hede', and then the normal part (.*) can eat the whole text all at one time.
Here is the improved regex:
/^(?!.*?hede).*$/
Note the (*?) lazy quantifier in the negative lookahead part is optional, you can use (*) greedy quantifier instead, depending on your data: if 'hede' does present and in the beginning half of the text, the lazy quantifier can be faster; otherwise, the greedy quantifier be faster. However if 'hede' does not present, both would be equal slow.
Here is the demo code.
For more information about lookahead, please check out the great article: Mastering Lookahead and Lookbehind.
Also, please check out RegexGen.js, a JavaScript Regular Expression Generator that helps to construct complex regular expressions. With RegexGen.js, you can construct the regex in a more readable way:
var _ = regexGen;
var regex = _(
_.startOfLine(),
_.anything().notContains( // match anything that not contains:
_.anything().lazy(), 'hede' // zero or more chars that followed by 'hede',
// i.e., anything contains 'hede'
),
_.endOfLine()
);
Benchmarks
I decided to evaluate some of the presented Options and compare their performance, as well as use some new Features.
Benchmarking on .NET Regex Engine: http://regexhero.net/tester/
Benchmark Text:
The first 7 lines should not match, since they contain the searched Expression, while the lower 7 lines should match!
Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
XRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex HeroRegex HeroRegex HeroRegex HeroRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.Regex Hero
egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her
egex Hero
egex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Nobody is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her o egex Hero Regex Hero Reg ex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Results:
Results are Iterations per second as the median of 3 runs - Bigger Number = Better
01: ^((?!Regex Hero).)*$ 3.914 // Accepted Answer
02: ^(?:(?!Regex Hero).)*$ 5.034 // With Non-Capturing group
03: ^(?!.*?Regex Hero).* 7.356 // Lookahead at the beginning, if not found match everything
04: ^(?>[^R]+|R(?!egex Hero))*$ 6.137 // Lookahead only on the right first letter
05: ^(?>(?:.*?Regex Hero)?)^.*$ 7.426 // Match the word and check if you're still at linestart
06: ^(?(?=.*?Regex Hero)(?#fail)|.*)$ 7.371 // Logic Branch: Find Regex Hero? match nothing, else anything
P1: ^(?(?=.*?Regex Hero)(*FAIL)|(*ACCEPT)) ????? // Logic Branch in Perl - Quick FAIL
P2: .*?Regex Hero(*COMMIT)(*FAIL)|(*ACCEPT) ????? // Direct COMMIT & FAIL in Perl
Since .NET doesn't support action Verbs (*FAIL, etc.) I couldn't test the solutions P1 and P2.
Summary:
The overall most readable and performance-wise fastest solution seems to be 03 with a simple negative lookahead. This is also the fastest solution for JavaScript, since JS does not support the more advanced Regex Features for the other solutions.
Not regex, but I've found it logical and useful to use serial greps with pipe to eliminate noise.
eg. search an apache config file without all the comments-
grep -v '\#' /opt/lampp/etc/httpd.conf # this gives all the non-comment lines
and
grep -v '\#' /opt/lampp/etc/httpd.conf | grep -i dir
The logic of serial grep's is (not a comment) and (matches dir)
Since no one else has given a direct answer to the question that was asked, I'll do it.
The answer is that with POSIX grep, it's impossible to literally satisfy this request:
grep "<Regex for 'doesn't contain hede'>" input
The reason is that with no flags, POSIX grep is only required to work with Basic Regular Expressions (BREs), which are simply not powerful enough for accomplishing that task, because of lack of alternation in subexpressions. The only kind of alternation it supports involves providing multiple regular expressions separated by newlines, and that doesn't cover all regular languages, e.g. there's no finite collection of BREs that matches the same regular language as the extended regular expression (ERE) ^(ab|cd)*$.
However, GNU grep implements extensions that allow it. In particular, \| is the alternation operator in GNU's implementation of BREs. If your regular expression engine supports alternation, parentheses and the Kleene star, and is able to anchor to the beginning and end of the string, that's all you need for this approach. Note however that negative sets [^ ... ] are very convenient in addition to those, because otherwise, you need to replace them with an expression of the form (a|b|c| ... ) that lists every character that is not in the set, which is extremely tedious and overly long, even more so if the whole character set is Unicode.
Thanks to formal language theory, we get to see how such an expression looks like. With GNU grep, the answer would be something like:
grep "^\([^h]\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\([^eh]\|e[^dh]\|ed[^eh]\)\)*\(\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\(\|e\|ed\)\)$" input
(found with Grail and some further optimizations made by hand).
You can also use a tool that implements EREs, like egrep, to get rid of the backslashes, or equivalently, pass the -E flag to POSIX grep (although I was under the impression that the question required avoiding any flags to grep whatsoever):
egrep "^([^h]|h(h|eh|edh)*([^eh]|e[^dh]|ed[^eh]))*(|h(h|eh|edh)*(|e|ed))$" input
Here's a script to test it (note it generates a file testinput.txt in the current directory). Several of the expressions presented in other answers fail this test.
#!/bin/bash
REGEX="^\([^h]\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\([^eh]\|e[^dh]\|ed[^eh]\)\)*\(\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\(\|e\|ed\)\)$"
# First four lines as in OP's testcase.
cat > testinput.txt <<EOF
hoho
hihi
haha
hede
h
he
ah
head
ahead
ahed
aheda
ahede
hhede
hehede
hedhede
hehehehehehedehehe
hedecidedthat
EOF
diff -s -u <(grep -v hede testinput.txt) <(grep "$REGEX" testinput.txt)
In my system it prints:
Files /dev/fd/63 and /dev/fd/62 are identical
as expected.
For those interested in the details, the technique employed is to convert the regular expression that matches the word into a finite automaton, then invert the automaton by changing every acceptance state to non-acceptance and vice versa, and then converting the resulting FA back to a regular expression.
As everyone has noted, if your regular expression engine supports negative lookahead, the regular expression is much simpler. For example, with GNU grep:
grep -P '^((?!hede).)*$' input
However, this approach has the disadvantage that it requires a backtracking regular expression engine. This makes it unsuitable in installations that are using secure regular expression engines like RE2, which is one reason to prefer the generated approach in some circumstances.
Using Kendall Hopkins' excellent FormalTheory library, written in PHP, which provides a functionality similar to Grail, and a simplifier written by myself, I've been able to write an online generator of negative regular expressions given an input phrase (only alphanumeric and space characters currently supported, and the length is limited): http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/misc/non-match-regex/
For hede it outputs:
^([^h]|h(h|e(h|dh))*([^eh]|e([^dh]|d[^eh])))*(h(h|e(h|dh))*(ed?)?)?$
which is equivalent to the above.
with this, you avoid to test a lookahead on each positions:
/^(?:[^h]+|h++(?!ede))*+$/
equivalent to (for .net):
^(?>(?:[^h]+|h+(?!ede))*)$
Old answer:
/^(?>[^h]+|h+(?!ede))*$/
Aforementioned (?:(?!hede).)* is great because it can be anchored.
^(?:(?!hede).)*$ # A line without hede
foo(?:(?!hede).)*bar # foo followed by bar, without hede between them
But the following would suffice in this case:
^(?!.*hede) # A line without hede
This simplification is ready to have "AND" clauses added:
^(?!.*hede)(?=.*foo)(?=.*bar) # A line with foo and bar, but without hede
^(?!.*hede)(?=.*foo).*bar # Same
An, in my opinon, more readable variant of the top answer:
^(?!.*hede)
Basically, "match at the beginning of the line if and only if it does not have 'hede' in it" - so the requirement translated almost directly into regex.
Of course, it's possible to have multiple failure requirements:
^(?!.*(hede|hodo|hada))
Details: The ^ anchor ensures the regex engine doesn't retry the match at every location in the string, which would match every string.
The ^ anchor in the beginning is meant to represent the beginning of the line. The grep tool matches each line one at a time, in contexts where you're working with a multiline string, you can use the "m" flag:
/^(?!.*hede)/m # JavaScript syntax
or
(?m)^(?!.*hede) # Inline flag
Here's how I'd do it:
^[^h]*(h(?!ede)[^h]*)*$
Accurate and more efficient than the other answers. It implements Friedl's "unrolling-the-loop" efficiency technique and requires much less backtracking.
Another option is that to add a positive look-ahead and check if hede is anywhere in the input line, then we would negate that, with an expression similar to:
^(?!(?=.*\bhede\b)).*$
with word boundaries.
The expression is explained on the top right panel of regex101.com, if you wish to explore/simplify/modify it, and in this link, you can watch how it would match against some sample inputs, if you like.
RegEx Circuit
jex.im visualizes regular expressions:
If you want to match a character to negate a word similar to negate character class:
For example, a string:
<?
$str="aaa bbb4 aaa bbb7";
?>
Do not use:
<?
preg_match('/aaa[^bbb]+?bbb7/s', $str, $matches);
?>
Use:
<?
preg_match('/aaa(?:(?!bbb).)+?bbb7/s', $str, $matches);
?>
Notice "(?!bbb)." is neither lookbehind nor lookahead, it's lookcurrent, for example:
"(?=abc)abcde", "(?!abc)abcde"
The OP did not specify or Tag the post to indicate the context (programming language, editor, tool) the Regex will be used within.
For me, I sometimes need to do this while editing a file using Textpad.
Textpad supports some Regex, but does not support lookahead or lookbehind, so it takes a few steps.
If I am looking to retain all lines that Do NOT contain the string hede, I would do it like this:
1. Search/replace the entire file to add a unique "Tag" to the beginning of each line containing any text.
Search string:^(.)
Replace string:<##-unique-##>\1
Replace-all
2. Delete all lines that contain the string hede (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>.*hede.*\n
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
3. At this point, all remaining lines Do NOT contain the string hede. Remove the unique "Tag" from all lines (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
Now you have the original text with all lines containing the string hede removed.
If I am looking to Do Something Else to only lines that Do NOT contain the string hede, I would do it like this:
1. Search/replace the entire file to add a unique "Tag" to the beginning of each line containing any text.
Search string:^(.)
Replace string:<##-unique-##>\1
Replace-all
2. For all lines that contain the string hede, remove the unique "Tag":
Search string:<##-unique-##>(.*hede)
Replace string:\1
Replace-all
3. At this point, all lines that begin with the unique "Tag", Do NOT contain the string hede. I can now do my Something Else to only those lines.
4. When I am done, I remove the unique "Tag" from all lines (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
Since the introduction of ruby-2.4.1, we can use the new Absent Operator in Ruby’s Regular Expressions
from the official doc
(?~abc) matches: "", "ab", "aab", "cccc", etc.
It doesn't match: "abc", "aabc", "ccccabc", etc.
Thus, in your case ^(?~hede)$ does the job for you
2.4.1 :016 > ["hoho", "hihi", "haha", "hede"].select{|s| /^(?~hede)$/.match(s)}
=> ["hoho", "hihi", "haha"]
Through PCRE verb (*SKIP)(*F)
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)|^.*$
This would completely skips the line which contains the exact string hede and matches all the remaining lines.
DEMO
Execution of the parts:
Let us consider the above regex by splitting it into two parts.
Part before the | symbol. Part shouldn't be matched.
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)
Part after the | symbol. Part should be matched.
^.*$
PART 1
Regex engine will start its execution from the first part.
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)
Explanation:
^ Asserts that we are at the start.
hede Matches the string hede
$ Asserts that we are at the line end.
So the line which contains the string hede would be matched. Once the regex engine sees the following (*SKIP)(*F) (Note: You could write (*F) as (*FAIL)) verb, it skips and make the match to fail. | called alteration or logical OR operator added next to the PCRE verb which inturn matches all the boundaries exists between each and every character on all the lines except the line contains the exact string hede. See the demo here. That is, it tries to match the characters from the remaining string. Now the regex in the second part would be executed.
PART 2
^.*$
Explanation:
^ Asserts that we are at the start. ie, it matches all the line starts except the one in the hede line. See the demo here.
.* In the Multiline mode, . would match any character except newline or carriage return characters. And * would repeat the previous character zero or more times. So .* would match the whole line. See the demo here.
Hey why you added .* instead of .+ ?
Because .* would match a blank line but .+ won't match a blank. We want to match all the lines except hede , there may be a possibility of blank lines also in the input . so you must use .* instead of .+ . .+ would repeat the previous character one or more times. See .* matches a blank line here.
$ End of the line anchor is not necessary here.
The TXR Language supports regex negation.
$ txr -c '#(repeat)
#{nothede /~hede/}
#(do (put-line nothede))
#(end)' Input
A more complicated example: match all lines that start with a and end with z, but do not contain the substring hede:
$ txr -c '#(repeat)
#{nothede /a.*z&~.*hede.*/}
#(do (put-line nothede))
#(end)' -
az <- echoed
az
abcz <- echoed
abcz
abhederz <- not echoed; contains hede
ahedez <- not echoed; contains hede
ace <- not echoed; does not end in z
ahedz <- echoed
ahedz
Regex negation is not particularly useful on its own but when you also have intersection, things get interesting, since you have a full set of boolean set operations: you can express "the set which matches this, except for things which match that".
It may be more maintainable to two regexes in your code, one to do the first match, and then if it matches run the second regex to check for outlier cases you wish to block for example ^.*(hede).* then have appropriate logic in your code.
OK, I admit this is not really an answer to the posted question posted and it may also use slightly more processing than a single regex. But for developers who came here looking for a fast emergency fix for an outlier case then this solution should not be overlooked.
The below function will help you get your desired output
<?PHP
function removePrepositions($text){
$propositions=array('/\bfor\b/i','/\bthe\b/i');
if( count($propositions) > 0 ) {
foreach($propositions as $exceptionPhrase) {
$text = preg_replace($exceptionPhrase, '', trim($text));
}
$retval = trim($text);
}
return $retval;
}
?>
I wanted to add another example for if you are trying to match an entire line that contains string X, but does not also contain string Y.
For example, let's say we want to check if our URL / string contains "tasty-treats", so long as it does not also contain "chocolate" anywhere.
This regex pattern would work (works in JavaScript too)
^(?=.*?tasty-treats)((?!chocolate).)*$
(global, multiline flags in example)
Interactive Example: https://regexr.com/53gv4
Matches
(These urls contain "tasty-treats" and also do not contain "chocolate")
example.com/tasty-treats/strawberry-ice-cream
example.com/desserts/tasty-treats/banana-pudding
example.com/tasty-treats-overview
Does Not Match
(These urls contain "chocolate" somewhere - so they won't match even though they contain "tasty-treats")
example.com/tasty-treats/chocolate-cake
example.com/home-cooking/oven-roasted-chicken
example.com/tasty-treats/banana-chocolate-fudge
example.com/desserts/chocolate/tasty-treats
example.com/chocolate/tasty-treats/desserts
As long as you are dealing with lines, simply mark the negative matches and target the rest.
In fact, I use this trick with sed because ^((?!hede).)*$ looks not supported by it.
For the desired output
Mark the negative match: (e.g. lines with hede), using a character not included in the whole text at all. An emoji could probably be a good choice for this purpose.
s/(.*hede)/🔒\1/g
Target the rest (the unmarked strings: e.g. lines without hede). Suppose you want to keep only the target and delete the rest (as you want):
s/^🔒.*//g
For a better understanding
Suppose you want to delete the target:
Mark the negative match: (e.g. lines with hede), using a character not included in the whole text at all. An emoji could probably be a good choice for this purpose.
s/(.*hede)/🔒\1/g
Target the rest (the unmarked strings: e.g. lines without hede). Suppose you want to delete the target:
s/^[^🔒].*//g
Remove the mark:
s/🔒//g
^((?!hede).)*$ is an elegant solution, except since it consumes characters you won't be able to combine it with other criteria. For instance, say you wanted to check for the non-presence of "hede" and the presence of "haha." This solution would work because it won't consume characters:
^(?!.*\bhede\b)(?=.*\bhaha\b)
How to use PCRE's backtracking control verbs to match a line not containing a word
Here's a method that I haven't seen used before:
/.*hede(*COMMIT)^|/
How it works
First, it tries to find "hede" somewhere in the line. If successful, at this point, (*COMMIT) tells the engine to, not only not backtrack in the event of a failure, but also not to attempt any further matching in that case. Then, we try to match something that cannot possibly match (in this case, ^).
If a line does not contain "hede" then the second alternative, an empty subpattern, successfully matches the subject string.
This method is no more efficient than a negative lookahead, but I figured I'd just throw it on here in case someone finds it nifty and finds a use for it for other, more interesting applications.
Simplest thing that I could find would be
[^(hede)]
Tested at https://regex101.com/
You can also add unit-test cases on that site
A simpler solution is to use the not operator !
Your if statement will need to match "contains" and not match "excludes".
var contains = /abc/;
var excludes =/hede/;
if(string.match(contains) && !(string.match(excludes))){ //proceed...
I believe the designers of RegEx anticipated the use of not operators.
https://regex101.com/r/sB9wW6/1
(?:(?<=\s)|^)#(\S+) <-- the problem in positive lookbehind
Working like this on prod: (?:\s|^)#(\S+), but I need a correct start index (without space).
Here is in JS:
var regex = new RegExp(/(?:(?<=\s)|^)#(\S+)/g);
Error parsing regular expression: Invalid regular expression:
/(?:(?<=\s)|^)#(\S+)/
What am I doing wrong?
UPDATE
Ok, no lookbehind in JS :(
But anyways, I need a regex to get the proper start and end index of my match. Without leading space.
Make sure you always select the right regex engine at regex101.com. See an issue that occurred due to using a JS-only compatible regex with [^] construct in Python.
JS regex - at the time of answering this question - did not support lookbehinds. Now, it becomes more and more adopted after its introduction in ECMAScript 2018. You do not really need it here since you can use capturing groups:
var re = /(?:\s|^)#(\S+)/g;
var str = 's #vln1\n#vln2\n';
var res = [];
while ((m = re.exec(str)) !== null) {
res.push(m[1]);
}
console.log(res);
The (?:\s|^)#(\S+) matches a whitespace or the start of string with (?:\s|^), then matches #, and then matches and captures into Group 1 one or more non-whitespace chars with (\S+).
To get the start/end indices, use
var re = /(\s|^)#\S+/g;
var str = 's #vln1\n#vln2\n';
var pos = [];
while ((m = re.exec(str)) !== null) {
pos.push([m.index+m[1].length, m.index+m[0].length]);
}
console.log(pos);
BONUS
My regex works at regex101.com, but not in...
First of all, have you checked the Code Generator link in the Tools pane on the left?
All languages - "Literal string" vs. "String literal" alert - Make sure you test against the same text used in code, literal string, at the regex tester. A common scenario is copy/pasting a string literal value directly into the test string field, with all string escape sequences like \n (line feed char), \r (carriage return), \t (tab char). See Regex_search c++, for example. Mind that they must be replaced with their literal counterparts. So, if you have in Python text = "Text\n\n abc", you must use Text, two line breaks, abc in the regex tester text field. Text.*?abc will never match it although you might think it "works". Yes, . does not always match line break chars, see How do I match any character across multiple lines in a regular expression?
All languages - Backslash alert - Make sure you correctly use a backslash in your string literal, in most languages, in regular string literals, use double backslash, i.e. \d used at regex101.com must written as \\d. In raw string literals, use a single backslash, same as at regex101. Escaping word boundary is very important, since, in many languages (C#, Python, Java, JavaScript, Ruby, etc.), "\b" is used to define a BACKSPACE char, i.e. it is a valid string escape sequence. PHP does not support \b string escape sequence, so "/\b/" = '/\b/' there.
All languages - Default flags - Global and Multiline - Note that by default m and g flags are enabled at regex101.com. So, if you use ^ and $, they will match at the start and end of lines correspondingly. If you need the same behavior in your code check how multiline mode is implemented and either use a specific flag, or - if supported - use an inline (?m) embedded (inline) modifier. The g flag enables multiple occurrence matching, it is often implemented using specific functions/methods. Check your language reference to find the appropriate one.
line-breaks - Line endings at regex101.com are LF only, you can't test strings with CRLF endings, see regex101.com VS myserver - different results. Solutions can be different for each regex library: either use \R (PCRE, Java, Ruby) or some kind of \v (Boost, PCRE), \r?\n, (?:\r\n?|\n)/(?>\r\n?|\n) (good for .NET) or [\r\n]+ in other libraries (see answers for C#, PHP). Another issue related to the fact that you test your regex against a multiline string (not a list of standalone strings/lines) is that your patterns may consume the end of line, \n, char with negated character classes, see an issue like that. \D matched the end of line char, and in order to avoid it, [^\d\n] could be used, or other alternatives.
php - You are dealing with Unicode strings, or want shorthand character classes to match Unicode characters, too (e.g. \w+ to match Стрибижев or Stribiżew, or \s+ to match hard spaces), then you need to use u modifier, see preg_match() returns 0 although regex testers work - To match all occurrences, use preg_match_all, not preg_match with /...pattern.../g, see PHP preg_match to find multiple occurrences and "Unknown modifier 'g' in..." when using preg_match in PHP?- Your regex with inline backreference like \1 refuses to work? Are you using a double quoted string literal? Use a single-quoted one, see Backreference does not work in PHP
phplaravel - Mind you need the regex delimiters around the pattern, see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22430529
python - Note that re.search, re.match, re.fullmatch, re.findall and re.finditer accept the regex as the first argument, and the input string as the second argument. Not re.findall("test 200 300", r"\d+"), but re.findall(r"\d+", "test 200 300"). If you test at regex101.com, please check the "Code Generator" page. - You used re.match that only searches for a match at the start of the string, use re.search: Regex works fine on Pythex, but not in Python - If the regex contains capturing group(s), re.findall returns a list of captures/capture tuples. Either use non-capturing groups, or re.finditer, or remove redundant capturing groups, see re.findall behaves weird - If you used ^ in the pattern to denote start of a line, not start of the whole string, or used $ to denote the end of a line and not a string, pass re.M or re.MULTILINE flag to re method, see Using ^ to match beginning of line in Python regex
- If you try to match some text across multiple lines, and use re.DOTALL or re.S, or [\s\S]* / [\s\S]*?, and still nothing works, check if you read the file line by line, say, with for line in file:. You must pass the whole file contents as the input to the regex method, see Getting Everything Between Two Characters Across New Lines. - Having trouble adding flags to regex and trying something like pattern = r"/abc/gi"? See How to add modifers to regex in python?
c#, .net - .NET regex does not support possessive quantifiers like ++, *+, ??, {1,10}?, see .NET regex matching digits between optional text with possessive quantifer is not working - When you match against a multiline string and use RegexOptions.Multiline option (or inline (?m) modifier) with an $ anchor in the pattern to match entire lines, and get no match in code, you need to add \r? before $, see .Net regex matching $ with the end of the string and not of line, even with multiline enabled - To get multiple matches, use Regex.Matches, not Regex.Match, see RegEx Match multiple times in string - Similar case as above: splitting a string into paragraphs, by a double line break sequence - C# / Regex Pattern works in online testing, but not at runtime - You should remove regex delimiters, i.e. #"/\d+/" must actually look like #"\d+", see Simple and tested online regex containing regex delimiters does not work in C# code - If you unnecessarily used Regex.Escape to escape all characters in a regular expression (like Regex.Escape(#"\d+\.\d+")) you need to remove Regex.Escape, see Regular Expression working in regex tester, but not in c#
dartflutter - Use raw string literal, RegExp(r"\d"), or double backslashes (RegExp("\\d")) - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59085824
javascript - Double escape backslashes in a RegExp("\\d"): Why do regex constructors need to be double escaped?
- (Negative) lookbehinds unsupported by most browsers: Regex works on browser but not in Node.js - Strings are immutable, assign the .replace result to a var - The .replace() method does change the string in place - Retrieve all matches with str.match(/pat/g) - Regex101 and Js regex search showing different results or, with RegExp#exec, RegEx to extract all matches from string using RegExp.exec- Replace all pattern matches in string: Why does javascript replace only first instance when using replace?
javascriptangular - Double the backslashes if you define a regex with a string literal, or just use a regex literal notation, see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56097782
java - Word boundary not working? Make sure you use double backslashes, "\\b", see Regex \b word boundary not works - Getting invalid escape sequence exception? Same thing, double backslashes - Java doesn't work with regex \s, says: invalid escape sequence - No match found is bugging you? Run Matcher.find() / Matcher.matches() - Why does my regex work on RegexPlanet and regex101 but not in my code? - .matches() requires a full string match, use .find(): Java Regex pattern that matches in any online tester but doesn't in Eclipse - Access groups using matcher.group(x): Regex not working in Java while working otherwise - Inside a character class, both [ and ] must be escaped - Using square brackets inside character class in Java regex - You should not run matcher.matches() and matcher.find() consecutively, use only if (matcher.matches()) {...} to check if the pattern matches the whole string and then act accordingly, or use if (matcher.find()) to check if there is a single match or while (matcher.find()) to find multiple matches (or Matcher#results()). See Why does my regex work on RegexPlanet and regex101 but not in my code?
scala - Your regex attempts to match several lines, but you read the file line by line (e.g. use for (line <- fSource.getLines))? Read it into a single variable (see matching new line in Scala regex, when reading from file)
kotlin - You have Regex("/^\\d+$/")? Remove the outer slashes, they are regex delimiter chars that are not part of a pattern. See Find one or more word in string using Regex in Kotlin - You expect a partial string match, but .matchEntire requires a full string match? Use .find, see Regex doesn't match in Kotlin
mongodb - Do not enclose /.../ with single/double quotation marks, see mongodb regex doesn't work
c++ - regex_match requires a full string match, use regex_search to find a partial match - Regex not working as expected with C++ regex_match - regex_search finds the first match only. Use sregex_token_iterator or sregex_iterator to get all matches: see What does std::match_results::size return? - When you read a user-defined string using std::string input; std::cin >> input;, note that cin will only get to the first whitespace, to read the whole line properly, use std::getline(std::cin, input); - C++ Regex to match '+' quantifier - "\d" does not work, you need to use "\\d" or R"(\d)" (a raw string literal) - This regex doesn't work in c++ - Make sure the regex is tested against a literal text, not a string literal, see Regex_search c++
go - Double backslashes or use a raw string literal: Regular expression doesn't work in Go - Go regex does not support lookarounds, select the right option (Go) at regex101.com before testing! Regex expression negated set not working golang
groovy - Return all matches: Regex that works on regex101 does not work in Groovy
r - Double escape backslashes in the string literal: "'\w' is an unrecognized escape" in grep - Use perl=TRUE to PCRE engine ((g)sub/(g)regexpr): Why is this regex using lookbehinds invalid in R?
oracle - Greediness of all quantifiers is set by the first quantifier in the regex, see Regex101 vs Oracle Regex (then, you need to make all the quantifiers as greedy as the first one)] - \b does not work? Oracle regex does not support word boundaries at all, use workarounds as shown in Regex matching works on regex tester but not in oracle
firebase - Double escape backslashes, make sure ^ only appears at the start of the pattern and $ is located only at the end (if any), and note you cannot use more than 9 inline backreferences: Firebase Rules Regex Birthday
firebasegoogle-cloud-firestore - In Firestore security rules, the regular expression needs to be passed as a string, which also means it shouldn't be wrapped in / symbols, i.e. use allow create: if docId.matches("^\\d+$").... See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63243300
google-data-studio - /pattern/g in REGEXP_REPLACE must contain no / regex delimiters and flags (like g) - see How to use Regex to replace square brackets from date field in Google Data Studio?
google-sheets - If you think REGEXEXTRACT does not return full matches, truncates the results, you should check if you have redundant capturing groups in your regex and remove them, or convert the capturing groups to non-capturing by add ?: after the opening (, see Extract url domain root in Google Sheet
sed - Why does my regular expression work in X but not in Y?
word-boundarypcrephp - [[:<:]] and [[:>:]] do not work in the regex tester, although they are valid constructs in PCRE, see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48670105
snowflake-cloud-data-platform snowflake-sql - If you are writing a stored procedure, and \\d does not work, you need to double them again and use \\\\d, see REGEX conversion of VARCHAR value to DATE in Snowflake stored procedure using RLIKE not consistent.