Combine 2 or more regular expressions

Hello
I would like to ask, if it is possible to combine more search and replace regular expressions in dreamweaver (direct input or combining .drw files)
for example, something easy:
search: Adobe
replace: $1®
and in same step also:
search: euro; ([0-9])([0-9])([0-9])([0-9]),([0-9])([0-9])
replace: euro; $1.$2$3$4,$5$6
I would like to speed up my work and instead of 3 searc&replaces use only one.
Thanks for your help

st3n wrote:
I would like to ask, if it is possible to combine more search and replace regular expressions in dreamweaver (direct input or combining .drw files)
No. Although it's possible to combine the regular expressions to search for the different values, there's only one replacement value. Using your example would not only add ® after Adobe, but also in front of euro;. Under the hood, Dreamweaver is simply using the JavaScript replace() method.
By the way, your second regex could be simplified like this:
search: (euro; \d)(\d{3},\d{2})
replace: $1.$2

Similar Messages

Regular Expression in content filter

Hey,
i want to create a content filter with the "body-contains"-condition in combination with a regular expression. To specify it:
I want to check whether a string (disclaimer) is already added to the email. If not, i have to add the footer.
So to say: REGULAR EXPRESSION = does not contain "string"
But how does the regular expression look like?
<rule>
<rule_type>Only_Body_Contains_Rule</rule_type>
<rule_data>REGULAR EXPRESSION (does not contain...)</rule_data>
<rule_extra1>1</rule_extra1>
</rule>
Thx

you MAY be able to use a negative lookahead assertion like:
?!EXPRESSION
this results in:
content_filter: if (only-body-contains("?!disclaimer text", 1) )
OR in message filters you can say:
if ( not body-contains("EXPRESSION",1) )
all that said, you should just have two content filters, 1 to check for the filter and deliver immediately (w/o filter stamp) and another catch-all filter to stamp filters. for example:
disclaimer_skip
disclaimer_skip: if (only-body-contains("disclaimer text", 1)) { deliver(); }
outbound-disclaimer-catchall
outbound-disclaimer-catchall: if (true) { add-footer("my_disclaimer"); }
cheers,
andrew

If an airport Extreme is combined with one or more airport expresses, what is the max number of connections? Is it just 50, or 50 plus 10 for each Express?

I would like to set up a wireless network with an Airport Extreme, plus one or more Airport Expresses to extend the range. I know an Extreme supports 50 users and an Express 10 users, but when they're combined does the number of users go up according to the number of Expresses combined with the Extreme, or is it limited at 50 no-matter how many Expresses are added?
Thanks
Steve

50 users + 10 users + 10 users + etc. I am assuming that each Express device will be connected using a wired Ethernet connection.
But, unless you have a truly fantastic Internet connection with your ISP, things are going to be mighty slow on the network since all users split up the available bandwidth.
So, if you have a 50 Mbps Internet connection, 50 users will have approximately 1 Mbps of bandwidth to work with. Few of us would consider having a 1 Mbps service in our home, even if we only had one computer....way too slow.

Need help for a more complicated regular expression

Hi everyone,
I got another more complicated one here.
I need to split '+0,+0.00000000E+000, -4.76517000E+001,-4.64744200E+001,-6.18140500E+001,-5.93055600E+001' by ',' into an array without '+0,+0.00000000E+000'.
I am using a regular expression as '[+-]([0-9]+[1-9]+)[E][+]\d' but it failed to, just wondering what is happening there.
Any idea is well appreciated,
Thanks,
+Kunsheng
Message Edited by Kunsheng Chen on 03-05-2009 05:09 PM
Solved!
Go to Solution.
Attachments:
regular.vi ‏33 KB

First, don't bother with regular expressions. Use the function Spreadsheet String to Array with a commas as the delimiter, %f as the format string, a 1D array of floats as the array type. Next, delete the first two elements from the results and you're done.
Mike...
Certified Professional Instructor
Certified LabVIEW Architect
LabVIEW Champion
"... after all, He's not a tame lion..."
Be thinking ahead and mark your dance card for NI Week 2015 now: TS 6139 - Object Oriented First Steps

MDS Business rule regular expression to validate code to be combination of two attributes

Hi
I need to have a business rule as below:
entity1 have code, Attr1 and Attr2
I have to ensure code is always combination of Attr1 and Attr2. If either of the Attr1 or Attr2 is blank, validation should fail.
I tried below possibilities:
1. Set Code to Auto generate
2. Change tracking enabled for Attr1 and Attr2
and below BRs:
1. Attr1 has changed in group 1 AND (Attr2 has changed in group 1) then action:     Code equals a concatenated value Attr1 + Attr2
2. Attr1 is equal to Blank OR Attr2 is equal to Blank then action:     Attr1 is required
    Attr2 is required
3. Code must be unique Attr1 ,Attr2
I see BRs 1 and 2 working. I have BR 3 to fail validation in case BR1 fails resulting code to remain auto generated value.
but i dont see BR-3 working. At the end teh result is code with auto generated value validation is success.
Is there a way i can overcome this issue?
Any idea of referring attrbitues in Regular expression of this sort... to set Code equals to [Attr1] + [Attr2]?

OK I bit the bullet and contacted support on this one.
There is a known issue with MDS 2012 and business rules with a combination of "must be unique" attributes. If you do not list the attributes in the same order that they were created you will get the generic error I cited. At first they told me it must be
in the same order the attributes are in and that worked on one entity but not the other. The difference was that in the second entity I previously rearranged the attributes in question. Once I changed the order in the business rule to reflect the *original*
order it worked like a champ.
Hopefully this helps save someone some time and money.

Introduction to regular expressions ...

I'm well aware that there are already some articles on that topic, some people asked me to share some of my knowledge on this topic. Please take a look at this first part and let me know if you find this useful. If yes, I'm going to continue on writing more parts using more and more complicated expressions - if you have questions or problems that you think could be solved through regular expression, please post them.
Introduction
Oracle has always provided some character/string functions in its PL/SQL command set, such as SUBSTR, REPLACE or TRANSLATE. With 10g, Oracle finally gave us, the users, the developers and of course the DBAs regular expressions. However, regular expressions, due to their sometimes cryptic rules, seem to be overlooked quite often, despite the existence of some very interesing use cases. Beeing one of the advocates of regular expression, I thought I'll give the interested audience an introduction to these new functions in several installments.
Having fun with regular expressions - Part 1
Oracle offers the use of regular expression through several functions: REGEXP_INSTR, REGEXP_SUBSTR, REGEXP_REPLACE and REGEXP_LIKE. The second part of each function already gives away its purpose: INSTR for finding a position inside a string, SUBSTR for extracting a part of a string, REPLACE for replacing parts of a string. REGEXP_LIKE is a special case since it could be compared to the LIKE operator and is therefore usually used in comparisons like IF statements or WHERE clauses.
Regular expressions excel, in my opinion, in search and extraction of strings, using that for finding or replacing certain strings or check for certain formatting criterias. They're not very good at formatting strings itself, except for some special cases I'm going to demonstrate.
If you're not familiar with regular expression, you should take a look at the definition in Oracle's user guide Using Regular Expressions With Oracle Database, and please note that there have been some changes and advancements in 10g2. I'll provide examples, that should work on both versions.
Some of you probably already encountered this problem: checking a number inside a string, because, for whatever reason, a column was defined as VARCHAR2 and not as NUMBER as one would have expected.
Let's check for all rows where column col1 does NOT include an unsigned integer. I'll use this SELECT for demonstrating different values and search patterns:
WITH t AS (SELECT '456' col1
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '123x'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT 'x123'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT 'y'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '+789'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-789'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '159-'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1-'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.col1
FROM t
WHERE NOT REGEXP_LIKE(t.col1, '^[0-9]+$')
;Let's take a look at the 2nd argument of this REGEXP function: '^[0-9]+$'. Translated it would mean: start at the beginning of the string, check if there's one or more characters in the range between '0' and '9' (also called a matching character list) until the end of this string. "^", "[", "]", "+", "$" are all Metacharacters.
To understand regular expressions, you have to "think" in regular expressions. Each regular expression tries to "fit" an available string into its pattern and returns a result beeing successful or not, depending on the function. The "art" of using regular expressions is to construct the right search pattern for a certain task. Using functions like TRANSLATE or REPLACE did already teach you using search patterns, regular expressions are just an extension to this paradigma. Another side note: most of the search patterns are placeholders for single characters, not strings.
I'll take this example a bit further. What would happen if we would remove the "$" in our example? "$" means: (until the) end of a string. Without this, this expression would only search digits from the beginning until it encounters either another character or the end of the string. So this time, '123x' would be removed from the SELECTION since it does fit into the pattern.
Another change: we will keep the "$" but remove the "^". This character has several meanings, but in this case it declares: (start from the) beginning of a string. Without it, the function will search for a part of a string that has only digits until the end of the searched string. 'x123' would now be removed from our selection.
Now there's a question: what happens if I remove both, "^" and "$"? Well, just think about it. We now ask to find any string that contains at least one or more digits, so both '123x' and 'x123' will not show up in the result.
So what if I want to look for signed integer, since "+" is also used for a search expression. Escaping is the name of the game. We'll just use '^\+[0-9]+$' Did you notice the "\" before the first "+"? This is now a search pattern for the plus sign.
Should signed integers include negative numbers as well? Of course they should, and I'll once again use a matching character list. In this list, I don't need to do escaping, although it is possible. The result string would now look like this: '^[+-]?[0-9]+$'. Did you notice the "?"? This is another metacharacter that changes the placeholder for plus and minus to an optional placeholder, which means: if there's a "+" or "-", that's ok, if there's none, that's also ok. Only if there's a different character, then again the search pattern will fail.
Addendum: From this on, I found a mistake in my examples. If you would have tested my old examples with test data that would have included multiple signs strings, like "--", "-+", "++", they would have been filtered by the SELECT statement. I mistakenly used the "*" instead of the "?" operator. The reason why this is a bad idea, can also be found in the user guide: the "*" meta character is defined as 0 to multiple occurrences.
Looking at the values, one could ask the question: what about the integers with a trailing sign? Quite simple, right? Let's just add another '[+-] and the search pattern would look like this: '^[+-]?[0-9]+[+-]?$'.
Wait a minute, what happened to the row with the column value "-1-"?
You probably already guessed it: the new pattern qualifies this one also as a valid string. I could now split this pattern into several conditions combined through a logical OR, but there's something even better: a logical OR inside the regular expression. It's symbol is "|", the pipe sign.
Changing the search pattern again to something like this '^[+-]?[0-9]+$|^[0-9]+[+-]?$' [1] would return now the "-1-" value. Do I have to duplicate the same elements like "^" and "$", what about more complicated, repeating elements in future examples? That's where subexpressions/grouping comes into play. If I want only certain parts of the search pattern using an OR operator, we can put those inside round brackets. '^([+-]?[0-9]+|[0-9]+[+-]?)$' serves the same purpose and allows for further checks without duplicating the whole pattern.
Now looking for integers is nice, but what about decimal numbers? Those may be a bit more complicated, but all I have to do is again to think in (meta) characters. I'll just use an example where the decimal point is represented by ".", which again needs escaping, since it's also the place holder in regular expressions for "any character".
Valid decimals in my example would be ".0", "0.0", "0.", "0" (integer of course) but not ".". If you want, you can test it with the TO_NUMBER function. Finding such an unsigned decimal number could then be formulated like this: from the beginning of a string we will either allow a decimal point plus any number of digits OR at least one digits plus an optional decimal point followed by optional any number of digits. Think about it for a minute, how would you formulate such a search pattern?
Compare your solution to this one:
'^(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)$'
Addendum: Here I have to use both "?" and "*" to make sure, that I can have 0 to many digits after the decimal point, but only 0 to 1 occurrence of this substrings. Otherwise, strings like "1.9.9.9" would be possible, if I would write it like this:
'^(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)*)$'Some of you now might say: Hey, what about signed decimal numbers? You could of course combine all the ideas so far and you will end up with a very long and almost unreadable search pattern, or you start combining several regular expression functions. Think about it: Why put all the search patterns into one function? Why not split those into several steps like "check for a valid decimal" and "check for sign".
I'll just use another SELECT to show what I want to do:
WITH t AS (SELECT '0' col1
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '0.'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '0.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.1-'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1.1-'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.*
FROM t
;From this select, the only rows I need to find are those with the column values "." and "-1.1-". I'll start this with a check for valid signs. Since I want to combine this with the check for valid decimals, I'll first try to extract a substring with valid signs through the REGEXP_SUBSTR function:
NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1, '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'), ' ')Remember the OR operator and the matching character collections? But several "^"? Some of the meta characters inside a search pattern can have different meanings, depending on their positions and combination with other meta characters. In this case, the pattern translates into: from the beginning of the string search for "+" or "-" followed by at least another character that is not "+" or "-". The second pattern after the "|" OR operator does the same for a sign at the end of the string.
This only checks for a sign but not if there also only digits and a decimal point inside the string. If the search string fails, for example when we have more than one sign like in the "-1.1-", the function returns NULL. NULL and LIKE don't go together very well, so we'll just add NVL with a default value that tells the LIKE to ignore this string, in this case a space.
All we have to do now is to combine the check for the sign and the check for a valid decimal number, but don't forget an option for the signs at the beginning or end of the string, otherwise your second check will fail on the signed decimals. Are you ready?
Does your solution look a bit like this?
WHERE NOT REGEXP_LIKE(NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1,
                           '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'),
                       '^[+-]?(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)[+-]?$'
                      )Now the optional sign checks in the REGEXP_LIKE argument can be added to both ends, since the SUBSTR won't allow any string with signs on both ends. Thinking in regular expression again.
Continued in Introduction to regular expressions ... continued.
C.
Fixed some embarrassing typos ... and mistakes.
cd

Excellent write up CD. Very nice indeed. Hopefully you'll be completing parts 2 and 3 some time soon. And with any luck, your article will encourage others to do the same....I know there's a few I'd like to see and a few I'd like to have a go at writing too :-)

Help needed regarding regular expressions

hello
i need to write a program that recieves a matematical expression and evaluates
it...in other words a calculator :)
i know i need to use regular expressions inorder to determine if the input is legal or not ,but i'm really having trouble setting the pattern
the expression can be in the form : Axxze2223+log(5)+(2*3)*(5+4)
where Axxze2223 is a variable(i.e a combination of letters and numbers.)
where as: l o g (5) or log() or Axxx33aaaa or () are illegal
i tried to set the pattern but i got exceptions or it just didnt work the way i wanted it .
here's what i tried to do at least for the varibale form:
"\\s*(*([a-zA-Z]+\\d)+)*\\s*";
i'm really new to this...and i can't seem to set the pattern by using regular expressions,how can i combine all the rules to one string?
any help or references would be appreciated
thanks

so i'll explain
let's say i got token "abc22c"(let's call it "token")
i wan't to check if it's legal
i define:
String varPattern = "\\s*[a-zA-Z]+\\d+\\s*";If you want to check a sequence of ASCII characters, longer than one, followed by a single digit, the whole possibly surrounded by spaces -- yes.
>
now i want to check if it's o.k
so i check:
token.matches(varPattern);
am i correct?Quite. It's better to compile the Pattern (Pattern.compile(String)), create a java.util.regex.Matcher (Pattern#matcher(CharSequence)), and test the Matcher for Matcher#matches().
(Class.method -> static method, Class#method -> instance method)
>
now i'm having problem defining pattern for log()
sin() cos()
that brackets are mandatory ,and there must be an
expression inside
how do i do that?First, I'd check the overall function syntax (a valid name, brackets), then whether what's inside the brackets is a valid expression (maybe empty), then whether that expression is valid for that function (presumably always?).
I might add I'm no expert on parsing, so that's more a supposition than a guide.

Introduction to regular expressions ... continued.

After some very positive feedback from Introduction to regular expressions ... I'm now continuing on this topic for the interested audience. As always, if you have questions or problems that you think could be solved through regular expression, please post them.
Having fun with regular expressions - Part 2
Finishing my example with decimal numbers, I thought about a method to test regular expressions. A question from another user who was looking for a way to show all possible combinations inspired me in writing a small package.
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE regex_utils AS
-- Regular Expression Utilities
-- Version 0.1
TYPE t_outrec IS RECORD(
    data VARCHAR2(255)
TYPE t_outtab IS TABLE OF t_outrec;
FUNCTION gen_data(
    p_charset IN VARCHAR2 -- character set that is used for generation
, p_length IN NUMBER   -- length of the generated
) RETURN t_outtab PIPELINED;
END regex_utils;
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY regex_utils AS
-- FUNCTION gen_data returns a collection of generated varchar2 elements
FUNCTION gen_data(
    p_charset IN VARCHAR2 -- character set that is used for generation
, p_length IN NUMBER   -- length of the generated
) RETURN t_outtab PIPELINED
IS
    TYPE t_counter IS TABLE OF PLS_INTEGER INDEX BY PLS_INTEGER;
    v_counter t_counter;
    v_exit    BOOLEAN;
    v_string VARCHAR2(255);
    v_outrec t_outrec;
BEGIN
    FOR max_length IN 1..p_length
    LOOP
      -- init counter loop
      FOR i IN 1..max_length
      LOOP
        v_counter(i) := 1;
      END LOOP;
      -- start data generation loop
      v_exit := FALSE;
      WHILE NOT v_exit
      LOOP
        -- start generation
        v_string := '';
        FOR i IN 1..max_length
        LOOP
          v_string := v_string || SUBSTR(p_charset, v_counter(i), 1);
        END LOOP;
        -- set outgoing record
        v_outrec.data := v_string;
        -- now pipe the result
        PIPE ROW(v_outrec);
        -- increment loop
        <<inc_loop>>
        FOR i IN REVERSE 1..max_length
        LOOP
          v_counter(i) := v_counter(i) + 1;
          IF v_counter(i) > LENGTH(p_charset) THEN
             IF i > 1 THEN
                v_counter(i) := 1;
             ELSE
                v_exit := TRUE;
             END IF;
          ELSE
             -- no further processing required
             EXIT inc_loop;
          END IF;
        END LOOP;
      END LOOP;
    END LOOP;
END gen_data;
END regex_utils;
/This package is a brute force string generator using all possible combinations of a characters in a string up to a maximum length. Together with the regular expressions, I can now show what combinations my solution would allow to pass. But see for yourself:
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT data col1
          FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('+-.0', 5))
       ) t
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1,
                                     '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'
                   '^[+-]?(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)[+-]?$'
;You will see some results, which are perfectly valid for my definition of decimal numbers but haven't been mentioned, like '000' or '+.00'. From now on I will also use this package to verify the solutions I'll present to you and hopefully reduce my share of typos.
Counting and finding certain characters or words in a string can be a tedious task. I'll show you how it's done with regular expressions. I'll start with an easy example, count all spaces in the string "Having fun with regular expressions.":
SELECT NVL(LENGTH(REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions', '[^ ]')), 0)
FROM dual
;No surprise there. I'm replacing all characters except spaces with a null string. Since REGEXP_REPLACE assumes a NULL string as replacement argument, I can save on adding a third argument, which would look like this:
REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions', '[^ ]', '')So REPLACE will return all the spaces which we can count with the LENGTH function. If there aren't any, I will get a NULL string, which is checked by the NVL function. If you want you can play around by changing the space character to somethin else.
A variation of this theme could be counting the number of words. Counting spaces and adding 1 to this result could be misleading if there are duplicate spaces. Thanks to regular expressions, I can of course eliminate duplicates.
Using the old method on the string "Having fun with regular expressions" would return anything but the right number. This is, where Backreferences come into play. REGEXP_REPLACE uses them in the replacement argument, a backslash plus a single digit, like this: '\1'. To reference a string in a search pattern, I have to use subexpressions (remember the round brackets?).
SELECT NVL(LENGTH(REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions', '( )\1*|.', '\1')))
FROM dual
;You may have noticed that I changed from using the "^" as a NOT operator to using the "|" OR operator and the "." any character placeholder. This neat little trick allows to filter all other characters except the one we're looking in the first place. "\1" as backreference is outside of our subexpression since I don't want to count the trailing spaces and is used both in the search pattern and the replacement argument.
Still I'm not satisfied with this: What about leading/trailing blanks, what if there are any special characters, numbers, etc.? Finally, it's time to only count words. For the purpose of this demonstration, I define a word as one or more consecutive letters. If by now you're already thinking in regular expressions, the solution is not far away. One hint: you may want to check on the "i" match parameter which allows for case insensitive search. Another one: You won't need a back reference in the search pattern this time.
Let's compare our solutions than, shall we?
SELECT NVL(LENGTH(REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions. !',
                                 '([a-z])+|.', '\1', 1, 0, 'i')), 0)
FROM dual;This time I don't use a backreference, the "+" operator (remember? 1 or more) will suffice. And since I want to count the occurences, not the letters, I moved the "+" meta character outside of the subexpression. The "|." trick again proved to be useful.
Case insensitive search does have its merits. It will only search but not transform the any found substring. If I want, for example, extract any occurence of the word fun, I'll just use the "i" match parameter and get this substring, whether it's written as "Fun", "FUN" or "fun". Can be very useful if you're looking for example for names of customers, streets, etc.
Enough about counting, how about finding? What if I want to know the last occurence of a certain character or string, for example the postition of the last space in this string "Where is the last space?"?
Addendum: Thanks to another forum member, I should mention that using the INSTR function can do a reverse search by itself.[i]
WITH t AS (SELECT 'Where is the last space?' col1
             FROM dual)
SELECT INSTR(col1, ' ', -1)
FROM DUAL;Now regular expressions are powerful, but there is no parameter that allows us to reverse the search direction. However, remembering that we have the "$" meta character that means (until the) end of string, all I have to do is use a search pattern that looks for a combination of space and non-space characters including the end of a string. Now compare the REGEXP_INSTR function to the previous solution:
SELECT REGEXP_INSTR(t.col1, ' [^ ]*$')
FROM t;So in this case, it'll remain a matter of taste what you want to use. If the search pattern has to look for the last occurrence of another regular expression, this is the way to solve such a requirement.
One more thing about backreferences. They can be used for a sort of primitive "string swapping". If for example you have to transform column values like swapping first and last name, backreferenc is your friend. Here's an example:
SELECT REGEXP_REPLACE('John Doe', '^(.*) (.*)$', '\2, \1')
FROM dual
;What about middle names, for example 'John J. Doe'? Look for yourself, it still works.
You can even use that for strings with delimiters, for example reversing delimited "fields" like in this string '10~20~30~40~50' into '50~40~30~20~10'. Using REVERSE, I would get '05~04~03~02~01', so there has to be another way. Using backreferences however is limited to 9 subexpressions, which limits the following solution a bit, if you need to process strings with more than 9 fields. If you want, you can think this example through and see if your solution matches mine.
SELECT REGEXP_REPLACE('10~20~30~40~50',
                      '^(.*)~(.*)~(.*)~(.*)~(.*)$',
                      '\5~\4~\3~\2~\1'
FROM dual;After what you've learned so far, that wasn't too hard, was it? Enough for now ...
Continued in Introduction to regular expressions ... last part..
C.
Fixed some typos and a flawed example ...
cd

Thank you very much C. Awaiting other parts.... keep going.
One german typo :-)
I'm replacing all characters except spaces mit anull string.I received a functional spec from my Dutch analyst in which it is written
tnsnames voor EDWH:
PCESCRD1 = (DESCRIPTION=(ADDRESS_LIST=(ADDRESS=(PROTOCOL=TCP)
                                               (HOST=blah.blah.blah.com)
                                               (PORT=5227)))
           (CONNECT_DATA=(SID=pcescrd1)))
db user: BW_I2_VIEWER / BW_I2_VIEWER_SCRD1Had to look for translators.
Cheers
Sarma.

Introduction to regular expressions ... last part.

Continued from Introduction to regular expressions ... continued., here's the third and final part of my introduction to regular expressions. As always, if you find mistakes or have examples that you think could be solved through regular expressions, please post them.
Having fun with regular expressions - Part 3
In some cases, I may have to search for different values in the same column. If the searched values are fixed, I can use the logical OR operator or the IN clause, like in this example (using my brute force data generator from part 2):
SELECT data
FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('abcxyz012', 4))
WHERE data IN ('abc', 'xyz', '012');There are of course some workarounds as presented in this asktom thread but for a quick solution, there's of course an alternative approach available. Remember the "|" pipe symbol as OR operator inside regular expressions? Take a look at this:
SELECT data
FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('abcxyz012', 4))
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(data, '^(abc|xyz|012)$')
;I can even use strings composed of values like 'abc, xyz , 012' by simply using another regular expression to replace "," and spaces with the "|" pipe symbol. After reading part 1 and 2 that shouldn't be too hard, right? Here's my "thinking in regular expression": Replace every "," and 0 or more leading/trailing spaces.
Ready to try your own solution?
Does it look like this?
SELECT data
FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('abcxyz012', 4))
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(data, '^(' || REGEXP_REPLACE('abc, xyz , 012', ' *, *', '|') || ')$')
;If I wouldn't use the "^" and "$" metacharacter, this SELECT would search for any occurence inside the data column, which could be useful if I wanted to combine LIKE and IN clause. Take a look at this example where I'm looking for 'abc%', 'xyz%' or '012%' and adding a case insensitive match parameter to it:
SELECT data
FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('abcxyz012', 4))
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(data, '^(abc|xyz|012)', 'i')
; An equivalent non regular expression solution would have to look like this, not mentioning other options with adding an extra "," and using the INSTR function:
SELECT data
FROM (SELECT data, LOWER(DATA) search
          FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('abcxyz012', 4))
WHERE search LIKE 'abc%'
    OR search LIKE 'xyz%'
    OR search LIKE '012%'
SELECT data
FROM (SELECT data, SUBSTR(LOWER(DATA), 1, 3) search
          FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('abcxyz012', 4))
WHERE search IN ('abc', 'xyz', '012')
; I'll leave it to your imagination how a complete non regular example with 'abc, xyz , 012' as search condition would look like.
As mentioned in the first part, regular expressions are not very good at formatting, except for some selected examples, such as phone numbers, which in my demonstration, have different formats. Using regular expressions, I can change them to a uniform representation:
WITH t AS (SELECT '123-4567' phone
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '01 345678'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '7 87 8787'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.phone, REGEXP_REPLACE(REGEXP_REPLACE(phone, '[^0-9]'), '(.{3})(.*)', '(\1)-\2')
FROM t
;First, all non digit characters are beeing filtered, afterwards the remaining string is put into a "(xxx)-xxxx" format, but not cutting off any phone numbers that have more than 7 digits. Using such a conversion could also be used to check the validity of entered data, and updating the value with a uniform format afterwards.
Thinking about it, why not use regular expressions to check other values about their formats? How about an IP4 address? I'll do this step by step, using 127.0.0.1 as the final test case.
First I want to make sure, that each of the 4 parts of an IP address remains in the range between 0-255. Regular expressions are good at string matching but they don't allow any numeric comparisons. What valid strings do I have to take into consideration?
Single digit values: 0-9
Double digit values: 00-99
Triple digit values: 000-199, 200-255 (this one will be the trickiest part)
So far, I will have to use the "|" pipe operator to match all of the allowed combinations. I'll use my brute force generator to check if my solution works for a single value:
SELECT data
FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('0123456789', 3))
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(data, '^(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]{1,2})$')
; More than 255 records? Leading zeros are allowed, but checking on all the records, there's no value above 255. First step accomplished. The second part is to make sure, that there are 4 such values, delimited by a "." dot. So I have to check for 0-255 plus a dot 3 times and then check for another 0-255 value. Doesn't sound to complicated, does it?
Using first my brute force generator, I'll check if I've missed any possible combination:
SELECT data
FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('03.', 15))
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(data,
                   '^((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]{1,2})\.){3}(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]{1,2})$'
; Looks good to me. Let's check on some sample data:
WITH t AS (SELECT '127.0.0.1' ip
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '256.128.64.32'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.ip
FROM t WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(t.ip,
                   '^((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]{1,2})\.){3}(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]{1,2})$'
; No surprises here. I can take this example a bit further and try to format valid addresses to a uniform representation, as shown in the phone number example. My goal is to display every ip address in the "xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" format, using leading zeros for 2 and 1 digit values.
Regular expressions don't have any format models like for example the TO_CHAR function, so how could this be achieved? Thinking in regular expressions, I first have to find a way to make sure, that each single number is at least three digits wide. Using my example, this could look like this:
WITH t AS (SELECT '127.0.0.1' ip
             FROM dual
SELECT t.ip, REGEXP_REPLACE(t.ip, '([0-9]+)(\.?)', '00\1\2')
FROM t
; Look at this: leading zeros. However, that first value "00127" doesn't look to good, does it? If you thought about using a second regular expression function to remove any excess zeros, you're absolutely right. Just take the past examples and think in regular expressions. Did you come up with something like this?
WITH t AS (SELECT '127.0.0.1' ip
             FROM dual
SELECT t.ip, REGEXP_REPLACE(REGEXP_REPLACE(t.ip, '([0-9]+)(\.?)', '00\1\2'),
                            '[0-9]*([0-9]{3})(\.?)', '\1\2'
FROM t
; Think about the possibilities: Now you can sort a table with unformatted IP addresses, if that is a requirement in your application or you find other values where you can use that "trick".
Since I'm on checking INET (internet) type of values, let's do some more, for example an e-mail address. I'll keep it simple and will only check on the
"[email protected]", "[email protected]" and "[email protected]" format, where x represents an alphanumeric character. If you want, you can look up the corresponding RFC definition and try to build your own regular expression for that one.
Now back to this one: At least one alphanumeric character followed by an "@" at sign which is followed by at least one alphanumeric character followed by a "." dot and exactly 3 more alphanumeric characters or 2 more characters followed by a "." dot and another 2 characters. This should be an easy one, right? Use some sample e-mail addresses and my brute force generator, you should be able to verify your solution.
Here's mine:
SELECT data
FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('a1@.', 9))
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(data, '^[[:alnum:]]+@[[:alnum:]]+(\.[[:alnum:]]{3,4}|(\.[[:alnum:]]{2}){2})$', 'i'); Checking on valid domains, in my opinion, should be done in a second function, to keep the checks by itself simple, but that's probably a discussion about readability and taste.
How about checking a valid URL? I can reuse some parts of the e-mail example and only have to decide what type of URLs I want, for example "http://", "https://" and "ftp://", any subdomain and a "/" after the domain. Using the case insensitive match parameter, this shouldn't take too long, and I can use this thread's URL as a test value. But take a minute to figure that one out for yourself.
Does it look like this?
WITH t AS (SELECT 'Introduction to regular expressions ... last part. URL
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT 'http://x/'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.URL
FROM t
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(t.URL, '^(https*|ftp)://(.+\.)*[[:alnum:]]+(\.[[:alnum:]]{3,4}|(\.[[:alnum:]]{2}){2})/', 'i')
Update: Improvements in 10g2
All of you, who are using 10g2 or XE (which includes some of 10g2 features) may want to take a look at several improvements in this version. First of all, there are new, perl influenced meta characters.
Rewriting my example from the first lesson, the WHERE clause would look like this:
WHERE NOT REGEXP_LIKE(t.col1, '^\d+$')Or my example with searching decimal numbers:
'^(\.\d+|\d+(\.\d*)?)$'Saves some space, doesn't it? However, this will only work in 10g2 and future releases.
Some of those meta characters even include non matching lists, for example "\S" is equivalent to "[^ ]", so my example in the second part could be changed to:
SELECT NVL(LENGTH(REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions', '\S')), 0)
FROM dual
;Other meta characters support search patterns in strings with newline characters. Just take a look at the link I've included.
Another interesting meta character is "?" non-greedy. In 10g2, "?" not only means 0 or 1 occurrence, it means also the first occurrence. Let me illustrate with a simple example:
SELECT REGEXP_SUBSTR('Having fun with regular expressions', '^.* +')
FROM dual
;This is old style, "greedy" search pattern, returning everything until the last space.
SELECT REGEXP_SUBSTR('Having fun with regular expressions', '^.* +?')
FROM dual
;In 10g2, you'd get only "Having " because of the non-greedy search operation. Simulating that behavior in 10g1, I'd have to change the pattern to this:
SELECT REGEXP_SUBSTR('Having fun with regular expressions', '^[^ ]+ +')
FROM dual
;Another new option is the "x" match parameter. It's purpose is to ignore whitespaces in the searched string. This would prove useful in ignoring trailing/leading spaces for example. Checking on unsigned integers with leading/trailing spaces would look like this:
SELECT REGEXP_SUBSTR(' 123 ', '^[0-9]+$', 1, 1, 'x')
FROM dual
;However, I've to be careful. "x" would also allow " 1 2 3 " to qualify as valid string.
I hope you enjoyed reading this introduction and hope you'll have some fun with using regular expressions.
C.
Fixed some typos ...
Message was edited by:
cd
Included 10g2 features
Message was edited by:
cd

Can I write this condition with only one reg expr in Oracle (regexp_substr in my example)?I meant to use only regexp_substr in select clause and without regexp_like in where clause.
but for better understanding what I'd like to get
next example:
a have strings of two blocks separated by space.
in the first block 5 symbols of [01] in the second block 3 symbols of [01].
In the first block it is optional to meet one (!), in the second block it is optional to meet one (>).
The idea is to find such strings with only one reg expr using regexp_substr in the select clause, so if the string does not satisfy requirments should be passed out null in the result set.
with t as (select '10(!)010 10(>)1' num from dual union all
select '1112(!)0 111' from dual union all --incorrect because of '2'
select '(!)10010 011' from dual union all
select '10010(!) 101' from dual union all
select '10010 100(>)' from dual union all
select '13001 110' from dual union all -- incorrect because of '3'
select '100!01 100' from dual union all --incorrect because of ! without (!)
select '100(!)1(!)1 101' from dual union all -- incorrect because of two occurencies of (!)
select '1001(!)10 101' from dual union all --incorrect because of length of block1=6
select '1001(!)10 1011' from dual union all) --incorrect because of length of block2=4
select '10110 1(>)11(>)0' from dual union all)--incorrect because of two occurencies of (>)
select '1001(>)1 11(!)0' from dual)--incorrect because (!) and (>) are met not in their blocks
--end of test data

Regular Expressions - Dictionary List

Good day all -
I am trying to create a signature(s) to provide a minimalistic "content management" scenario. We have a list of about 150 words that we need to flag if they are seen in user data. I know how to create the regex string for a single word ... and can use the | pipe to separate the words to allow me to combine multiple words into a single signature ... but just how large is the STRING field? 255? 128? unlimited?
The idea hopefully is to use only 10 - 20 signatures to cover the whole list. Certainly hope to avoid having to write a new signature for each word!
Looking for suggestions and/or experiences of anyone else having attempted to do something like this.
Maybe someone found that you could insert unlimited words in the list but by doing so they overtaxed the sensor ... or that it appeared that using more than 10 words in a list was an iffy proposition.
All your inputs will be appreciated - whether I like what I hear or not! Thanks everyone.
Hank Schupp

It all depends on how many states the regular expression will create in the engine. The maximum is 64K bytes, which is a pretty long string. You will have to experiment to find the maximum number of words you can pipe into a single signature. I would recommend dividing the 150 words into different categories and writing one signature for each category. In general, writing one signature for 20 words will make it easy to manage.

Regular expressions to parse arithmetic expression

Hello,
I would like to parse arithmetic expressions like the following
"5.2 + cos($PI/2) * -5"where valid expression entities are numbers, operations, variables and paranthesis. Until now I have figured out some regular expressions to match every type of entities that I need, and combine them into one big regex supplied to a pattern and matcher. I will paste some code now to see what I wrote:
public class RegexTest {
    /** A regular expression matching numeric expressions (floating point numbers) */
    private static final String REGEX_NUMERIC = "(-?[0-9]+([0-9]*|[\\.]?[0-9]+))";
    /** A regular expression matching a valid variable name */
    private static final String REGEX_VARIABLE = "(\\$[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*)";
    /** A regular expression matching a valid operation string */
    public static final String REGEX_OPERATION = "(([a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]+)|([\\*\\/\\+\\-\\|\\?\\:\\@\\&\\^<>'`=%#]{1,2}))";
    /** A regular expression matching a valid paranthesis */
    private static final String REGEX_PARANTHESIS = "([\$\$])";
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String s = "5.2 + cos($PI/2) * -5".replaceAll(" ", "");
        Pattern p = Pattern.compile(REGEX_OPERATION + "|" + REGEX_NUMERIC + "|" + REGEX_VARIABLE + "|" + REGEX_PARANTHESIS);
        Matcher m = p.matcher(s);
        while (m.find()) {
            System.out.println(m.group());
}The output is
5
2
+
cos
$PI
2
5There are a few problems:
1. It splits "5.2" into "5" and "2" instead of keeping it together (so there might pe a problem with REGEX_NUMERIC although "5.2".matches(REGEX_NUMERIC) returns true)
2. It interprets "... * -5" as the operation " *- " and the number "5" instead of " * " and "-5".
Any solution to solve these 2 problems are greately appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Radu Cosmin.

cosminr wrote:
So, I've written some concludent examples and the output after parsing (separated by " , " ):
String e1 = "abs(-5) + -3";
// output now: abs , ( , - , 5 , ) , + , - , 3 ,
// should be: abs , ( , -5 , ) , + , - , 3 , (Notice the -5)
I presume that should also be "-3" instead of ["-", "3"].
String e2 = "sqrt(abs($x=1 + -10))";
// output now: sqrt , ( , abs , ( , $x , = , 1 , + , - , 10 , ) , ) ,
// should be: sqrt , ( , abs , ( , $x , = , 1 , + , -10 , ) , ) ,   (Notice the -10)
String e3 = "$e * -1 + (2 - sqrt(4))";
// output now: $e , * , - , 1 , + , ( , 2 , - , sqrt , ( , 4 , ) , ) ,
// should be: $e , * , -1 , + , ( , 2 , - , sqrt , ( , 4 , ) , ) ,
String e4 = "sin($PI/4) - 3";
// output now: sin , ( , $PI , / , 4 , ) , - , 3 , (This one is correct)
String e5 = "sin($PI/4) - -3 - (-4)";
// output now: sin , ( , $PI , / , 4 , ) , - , - , 3 , - , ( , - , 4 , ) ,
// should be: sin , ( , $PI , / , 4 , ) , - , -3 , - , ( , -4 , ) , (Notice -3 and -4)I hope they are relevant, If not I will supply some more.I made a small change to REGEX_NUMERIC and also put REGEX_NUMERIC at the start of the "complete pattern" when the Matcher is created:
import java.util.regex.*;
class Test {
    private static final String REGEX_NUMERIC = "(((?<=[-+*/(])|(?<=^))-)?\\d+(\\.\\d+)?";
    private static final String REGEX_VARIABLE = "\\$[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*";
    public static final String REGEX_OPERATION = "[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]+|[-*/+|?:@&^<>'`=%#]";
    private static final String REGEX_PARANTHESIS = "[()]";
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String[] tests = {
            "abs(-5) + -3",
            "sqrt(abs($x=1 + -10))",
            "$e * -1 + (2 - sqrt(4))",
            "sin($PI/4) - 3",
            "sin($PI/4) - -3 - (-4)",
            "-2-4" // minus sign at the start of the expression
        Pattern p = Pattern.compile(REGEX_NUMERIC + "|" + REGEX_OPERATION + "|" + REGEX_VARIABLE + "|" + REGEX_PARANTHESIS);
        for(String s: tests) {
            s = s.replaceAll("\\s", "");
            Matcher m = p.matcher(s);
            System.out.printf("%-21s-->", s);
            while (m.find()) {
                System.out.printf("%6s", m.group());
            System.out.println();
}Note that since Java's regex engine does not support "variable length look behinds", you will need to remove the white spaces from your expression, otherwise REGEX_NUMERIC will go wrong if a String looks like this:
"1 - - 1"Good luck!

GUI Based tool for search and replace using regular expression

Hi,
I have developed this small tool which can be used for search and replace in multiple files using reqular expressions.
Features:
1. Full regular expression
2. GUI based with Highlighted results
3. Preview for replace available
4. Pure Java based.
5. Its like unix sed and grep
Please visit below site for download/more information :
http://sourceforge.net/projects/regexsearchrepl/
Thanks,
Hitesh Viseria

I agree with you, it cannot compete grep/sed/awk combination. I couldnt find anything even close to grep/sed for windows which will also have a preview and most important, free. That is what made me write this tool. I am trying to
improve its performance and more features like history etc.
Any suggestions on additional features are most welcome.

How to Capture Multiple Line String using Regular Expression?

Hi,
I have a simple program like this:
What I want to accomplish is to capture everything between >>start and >>end using a single Match Regular Expression node. It seems that setting multiple? to True or False does not help.
I am using LabVIEW 2012.
If it is impossible to capture it using a single node, that is fine. But I want to make sure that I can make full use of this node without combining serveral others.
Thank you!
TailOfGon
Certified LabVIEW Architect 2013
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Thank you for the fast response! Your solution worked in the example case
After I saw your post, I was finally able to step forward. But I still wanted to make use of dot notation due to the limitation of characters that match with \w.
I made some more modification to your regular expression then now it seems working for all characters:
>>start((?:\s|.)*)>>end
Thanks!
TailOfGon
Certified LabVIEW Architect 2013

EMAIL VALIDATION USING REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

Hi All,
I am new to regular expressions and am trying to learn about them.
As practice I am trying to develop a query to filter out invalid e-mail id's eg:-
<some-name>.<some-name1>@gmail.com - VALID
<some-name>_<some-name1>@gmail.com - VALID
<some-name>@<some-name1>@gmail.com - INVALID
Lets say the column name is EMAIL_ID
So I have the expression to validate the email end as follows
select email from <table-name> where REGEXP_LIKE (EMAIL,'.com$') However i have no idea (wheter it is even possible) to filter out the third email id
on the condition that it has *2 @*
Any help regarding this would be welcome

I would recomend you to look at
http://psoug.org/reference/regexp.html
And will you find answers of your questions...
Shortly my comment to your questions...
1. [A-Za-z0-9._%+-]Here why is %+- included in the pattern?
Are they parts of a valid email-id?[char] Indicates a character list; most metacharacters inside a character list are understood as literals, with the exception of character classes, and the ^ and - metacharacters. Yes they are a part of valid email.
2 +@What is this part doing?
Is + some kind of concatenate operator to help you combine various expressions?+ is means that Character before Match 1 or more times. Your statement before "[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]" must be exist.
3 \.Is this used to validate the . as in .com ? Point (.) by himself means One character (whenever which one). By typing \. you want to see exactly point.. \ "takes" from point "command power" and point(.) become simple character.
4 {2,4}
Emails end in .com then what is the use of putting this range {2,4}?{m, n} Match at least m times but no more than n times.
You want characters after pount in range 2 and 4. i.e. ru, com, az, net and so on...
Hope this was helpfull for you...

Regular Expression. Select Statement. Carriage Return

Oracle 9i
Using SQLPLUS
I've read about regular expression and need some translation/explanation.
I have a large table containing a varchar2 (free text) column. Users may have inserted carriage returns when they entered the data. I need to locate rows that contain carriage returns, select and display them. Later I'll need to update those rows to replace the carriage returns with a space.
Can you assist with syntax. I believe use of a regular expression is required.
Thanks

for single characters like <CR> TRANSLATE() Doh. Never post at the end of a long day.
As the other posters have pointed out, one-for-one single character substitution is normally done with REPLACE(), although TRANSLATE() also works. The more normal role for TRANSLATE() is situations where you want to substitute multiple characters, e.g.
SQL> update <your table> set <your column> = replace (<your column> , chr(13)||chr(10), ' ');This substitutes a space for a carriage return and line feed combination.
Cheers, APC

Combine 2 or more regular expressions

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for