Related
I want to find out if there could ever be conflicts between two known regular expressions, in order to allow the user to construct a list of mutually exclusive regular expressions.
For example, we know that the regular expressions below are quite different but they both match xy50:
'^xy1\d'
'[^\d]\d2$'
Is it possible to determine, using a computer algorithm, if two regular expressions can have such a conflict? How?
There's no halting problem involved here. All you need is to compute if the intersection of ^xy1\d and [^\d]\d2$ in non-empty.
I can't give you an algorithm here, but here are two discussions of a method to generate the intersection without resorting the construction of a DFA:
http://sulzmann.blogspot.com/2008/11/playing-with-regular-expressions.html
And then there's RAGEL
http://www.complang.org/ragel/
which can compute the intersection of regular expressions too.
UPDATE: I just tried out Ragel with OP's regexp. Ragel can generate a "dot" file for graphviz from the resulting state machine, which is terrific. The intersection of the OP's regexp looks like this in Ragel syntax:
('xy1' digit any*) & (any* ^digit digit '2')
and has the following state machine:
While the empty intersection:
('xy1' digit any*) & ('q' any* ^digit digit '2')
looks like this:
So if all else fails, then you can still have Ragel compute the intersection and check if it outputs the empty state machine, by comparing the generated "dot" file.
The problem can be restated as, "do the languages described by two or more regular
expressions have a non-empty intersection"?
If you confine the question to pure regular expressions (no backreferences, lookahead,
lookbehind, or other features that allow recognition of context-free or more complex
languages), the question is at least decidable. Regular languages are closed under
intersection, and there is an algorithm that takes the two regular expressions
as inputs and produces, in finite time, a DFA that recognizes the intersection.
Each regular expression can be converted to a nondeterministic finite automaton,
and then to a deterministic finite automaton. A pair of DFAs can be converted
to a DFA that recognizes the intersection. If there is a path from the
start state to any accepting state of that final DFA, the intersection is non-empty
(a "conflict", using your terminology).
Unfortunately, there is a possibly-exponential blowup when converting the initial NFA
to a DFA, so the problem quickly becomes infeasible in practice as the size of
the input expressions grows.
And if extensions to pure regular expressions are permitted, all bets are off --
such languages are no longer closed under intersection, so this construction won't
work.
Yes I think this is solvable: instead of thinking of regular expressions as matching strings, you can also think of them as generating strings. That is, all the strings they would match.
Let [R] be the set of strings generated by the regular expression R. Then given to regular expressions R and T, we could try to match T against [R]. That is [R] matches T iff there is a string in [R] which matches T.
It should be possible to develop this into an algorithm where [R] is lazily constructed as needed: where normal regular expression matching would try to match the next character from an input string and then advance to the next character in the string, the modified algorithm would check whether the FSM corresponding to the input regular expression can generate a matching character at its current state and then advances to 'all next states' simultaneously.
Another approach would be to leverage Dan Kogai's Perl Regexp::Optimizer instead.
use Regexp::Optimizer;
my $o = Regexp::Optimizer->new->optimize(qr/foobar|fooxar|foozap/);
# $re is now qr/foo(?:[bx]ar|zap)/
.. first, optimize and then discard all redundant patterns.
Maybe Ron Savage's Regexp::Assemble could be even more helpful.
It allows assembling an arbitrary number of regular expressions into a single regular expression that matches all that the individual REs match.* Or a combination of both.
* However, you need to be aware of some differences between Perl and Java or other PCRE-flavors.
If you are looking for a lib in Java you can use Automaton using '&' operator:
RegExp re = new RegExp("(ABC_123.*56.txt)&(ABC_12.*456.*\\.txt)", RegExp.INTERSECTION); // Parse RegExp
Automaton a = re.toAutomaton(); // convert RegExp to automaton
if(a.isEmpty()) { // Test if intersection is empty
System.out.println("Intersection is empty!");
}
else {
// Print the shortest accepted string
System.out.println("Intersection is non-empty, example: " + a.getShortestExample(true));
}
Original Answer:
Detecting if two regexes could possibly match the same string
There is no day on SO that passes without a question about parsing (X)HTML or XML with regular expressions being asked.
While it's relatively easy to come up with examples that demonstrates the non-viability of regexes for this task or with a collection of expressions to represent the concept, I could still not find on SO a formal explanation of why this is not possible done in layman's terms.
The only formal explanations I could find so far on this site are probably extremely accurate, but also quite cryptic to the self-taught programmer:
the flaw here is that HTML is a Chomsky Type 2 grammar (context free
grammar) and RegEx is a Chomsky Type 3 grammar (regular expression)
or:
Regular expressions can only match regular languages but HTML is a
context-free language.
or:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
or:
The Pumping lemma for regular languages is the reason why you can't do
that.
[To be fair: the majority of the above explanation link to wikipedia pages, but these are not much easier to understand than the answers themselves].
So my question is: could somebody please provide a translation in layman's terms of the formal explanations given above of why it is not possible to use regex for parsing (X)HTML/XML?
EDIT: After reading the first answer I thought that I should clarify: I am looking for a "translation" that also briefely explains the concepts it tries to translate: at the end of an answer, the reader should have a rough idea - for example - of what "regular language" and "context-free grammar" mean...
Concentrate on this one:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
The definition of regular expressions is equivalent to the fact that a test of whether a string matches the pattern can be performed by a finite automaton (one different automaton for each pattern). A finite automaton has no memory - no stack, no heap, no infinite tape to scribble on. All it has is a finite number of internal states, each of which can read a unit of input from the string being tested, and use that to decide which state to move to next. As special cases, it has two termination states: "yes, that matched", and "no, that didn't match".
HTML, on the other hand, has structures that can nest arbitrarily deep. To determine whether a file is valid HTML or not, you need to check that all the closing tags match a previous opening tag. To understand it, you need to know which element is being closed. Without any means to "remember" what opening tags you've seen, no chance.
Note however that most "regex" libraries actually permit more than just the strict definition of regular expressions. If they can match back-references, then they've gone beyond a regular language. So the reason why you shouldn't use a regex library on HTML is a little more complex than the simple fact that HTML is not regular.
The fact that HTML doesn't represent a regular language is a red herring. Regular expression and regular languages sound sort of similar, but are not - they do share the same origin, but there's a notable distance between the academic "regular languages" and the current matching power of engines. In fact, almost all modern regular expression engines support non-regular features - a simple example is (.*)\1. which uses backreferencing to match a repeated sequence of characters - for example 123123, or bonbon. Matching of recursive/balanced structures make these even more fun.
Wikipedia puts this nicely, in a quote by Larry Wall:
'Regular expressions' [...] are only marginally related to real regular expressions. Nevertheless, the term has grown with the capabilities of our pattern matching engines, so I'm not going to try to fight linguistic necessity here. I will, however, generally call them "regexes" (or "regexen", when I'm in an Anglo-Saxon mood).
"Regular expression can only match regular languages", as you can see, is nothing more than a commonly stated fallacy.
So, why not then?
A good reason not to match HTML with regular expression is that "just because you can doesn't mean you should". While may be possible - there are simply better tools for the job. Considering:
Valid HTML is harder/more complex than you may think.
There are many types of "valid" HTML - what is valid in HTML, for example, isn't valid in XHTML.
Much of the free-form HTML found on the internet is not valid anyway. HTML libraries do a good job of dealing with these as well, and were tested for many of these common cases.
Very often it is impossible to match a part of the data without parsing it as a whole. For example, you might be looking for all titles, and end up matching inside a comment or a string literal. <h1>.*?</h1> may be a bold attempt at finding the main title, but it might find:
<!-- <h1>not the title!</h1> -->
Or even:
<script>
var s = "Certainly <h1>not the title!</h1>";
</script>
Last point is the most important:
Using a dedicated HTML parser is better than any regex you can come up with. Very often, XPath allows a better expressive way of finding the data you need, and using an HTML parser is much easier than most people realize.
A good summary of the subject, and an important comment on when mixing Regex and HTML may be appropriate, can be found in Jeff Atwood's blog: Parsing Html The Cthulhu Way.
When is it better to use a regular expression to parse HTML?
In most cases, it is better to use XPath on the DOM structure a library can give you. Still, against popular opinion, there are a few cases when I would strongly recommend using a regex and not a parser library:
Given a few of these conditions:
When you need a one-time update of your HTML files, and you know the structure is consistent.
When you have a very small snippet of HTML.
When you aren't dealing with an HTML file, but a similar templating engine (it can be very hard to find a parser in that case).
When you want to change parts of the HTML, but not all of it - a parser, to my knowledge, cannot answer this request: it will parse the whole document, and save a whole document, changing parts you never wanted to change.
Because HTML can have unlimited nesting of <tags><inside><tags and="<things><that><look></like></tags>"></inside></each></other> and regex can't really cope with that because it can't track a history of what it's descended into and come out of.
A simple construct that illustrates the difficulty:
<body><div id="foo">Hi there! <div id="bar">Bye!</div></div></body>
99.9% of generalized regex-based extraction routines will be unable to correctly give me everything inside the div with the ID foo, because they can't tell the closing tag for that div from the closing tag for the bar div. That is because they have no way of saying "okay, I've now descended into the second of two divs, so the next div close I see brings me back out one, and the one after that is the close tag for the first". Programmers typically respond by devising special-case regexes for the specific situation, which then break as soon as more tags are introduced inside foo and have to be unsnarled at tremendous cost in time and frustration. This is why people get mad about the whole thing.
A regular language is a language that can be matched by a finite state machine.
(Understanding Finite State machines, Push-down machines, and Turing machines is basically the curriculum of a fourth year college CS Course.)
Consider the following machine, which recognizes the string "hi".
(Start) --Read h-->(A)--Read i-->(Succeed)
\ \
\ -- read any other value-->(Fail)
-- read any other value-->(Fail)
This is a simple machine to recognize a regular language; Each expression in parenthesis is a state, and each arrow is a transition. Building a machine like this will allow you to test any input string against a regular language -- hence, a regular expression.
HTML requires you to know more than just what state you are in -- it requires a history of what you have seen before, to match tag nesting. You can accomplish this if you add a stack to the machine, but then it is no longer "regular". This is called a Push-down machine, and recognizes a grammar.
A regular expression is a machine with a finite (and typically rather small) number of discrete states.
To parse XML, C, or any other language with arbitrary nesting of language elements, you need to remember how deep you are. That is, you must be able to count braces/brackets/tags.
You cannot count with finite memory. There may be more brace levels than you have states! You might be able to parse a subset of your language that restricts the number of nesting levels, but it would be very tedious.
A grammar is a formal definition of where words can go. For example, adjectives preceed nouns in English grammar, but follow nouns en la gramática española.
Context-free means that the grammar works universally in all contexts. Context-sensitive means there are additional rules in certain contexts.
In C#, for example, using means something different in using System; at the top of files, than using (var sw = new StringWriter (...)). A more relevant example is the following code within code:
void Start ()
{
string myCode = #"
void Start()
{
Console.WriteLine (""x"");
}
";
}
There's another practical reason for not using regular expressions to parse XML and HTML that has nothing to do with the computer science theory at all: your regular expression will either be hideously complicated, or it will be wrong.
For example, it's all very well writing a regular expression to match
<price>10.65</price>
But if your code is to be correct, then:
It must allow whitespace after the element name in both start and end tag
If the document is in a namespace, then it should allow any namespace prefix to be used
It should probably allow and ignore any unknown attributes appearing in the start tag (depending on the semantics of the particular vocabulary)
It may need to allow whitespace before and after the decimal value (again, depending on the detailed rules of the particular XML vocabulary).
It should not match something that looks like an element, but is actually in a comment or CDATA section (this becomes especially important if there is a possibility of malicious data trying to fool your parser).
It may need to provide diagnostics if the input is invalid.
Of course some of this depends on the quality standards you are applying. We see a lot of problems on StackOverflow with people having to generate XML in a particular way (for example, with no whitespace in the tags) because it is being read by an application that requires it to be written in a particular way. If your code has any kind of longevity then it's important that it should be able to process incoming XML written in any way that the XML standard permits, and not just the one sample input document that you are testing your code on.
So others have gone and given brief definitions for most of these things, but I don't really think they cover WHY normal regex's are what they are.
There are some great resources on what a finite state machine is, but in short, a seminal paper in computer science proved that the basic grammar of regex's (the standard ones, used by grep, not the extended ones, like PCRE) can always be manipulated into a finite-state machine, meaning a 'machine' where you are always in a box, and have a limited number of ways to move to the next box. In short, you can always tell what the next 'thing' you need to do is just by looking at the current character. (And yes, even when it comes to things like 'match at least 4, but no more than 5 times', you can still create a machine like this) (I should note that note that the machine I describe here is technically only a subtype of finite-state machines, but it can implement any other subtype, so...)
This is great because you can always very efficiently evaluate such a machine, even for large inputs. Studying these sorts of questions (how does my algorithm behave when the number of things I feed it gets big) is called studying the computational complexity of the technique. If you're familiar with how a lot of calculus deals with how functions behave as they approach infinity, well, that's pretty much it.
So whats so great about a standard regular expression? Well, any given regex can match a string of length N in no more than O(N) time (meaning that doubling the length of your input doubles the time it takes: it says nothing about the speed for a given input) (of course, some are faster: the regex * could match in O(1), meaning constant, time). The reason is simple: remember, because the system has only a few paths from each state, you never 'go back', and you only need to check each character once. That means even if I pass you a 100 gigabyte file, you'll still be able to crunch through it pretty quickly: which is great!.
Now, its pretty clear why you can't use such a machine to parse arbitrary XML: you can have infinite tags-in-tags, and to parse correctly you need an infinite number of states. But, if you allow recursive replaces, a PCRE is Turing complete: so it could totally parse HTML! Even if you don't, a PCRE can parse any context-free grammar, including XML. So the answer is "yeah, you can". Now, it might take exponential time (you can't use our neat finite-state machine, so you need to use a big fancy parser that can rewind, which means that a crafted expression will take centuries on a big file), but still. Possible.
But lets talk real quick about why that's an awful idea. First of all, while you'll see a ton of people saying "omg, regex's are so powerful", the reality is... they aren't. What they are is simple. The language is dead simple: you only need to know a few meta-characters and their meanings, and you can understand (eventually) anything written in it. However, the issue is that those meta-characters are all you have. See, they can do a lot, but they're meant to express fairly simple things concisely, not to try and describe a complicated process.
And XML sure is complicated. It's pretty easy to find examples in some of the other answers: you can't match stuff inside comment fields, ect. Representing all of that in a programming language takes work: and that's with the benefits of variables and functions! PCRE's, for all their features, can't come close to that. Any hand-made implementation will be buggy: scanning blobs of meta-characters to check matching parenthesis is hard, and it's not like you can comment your code. It'd be easier to define a meta-language, and compile that down to a regex: and at that point, you might as well just take the language you wrote your meta-compiler with and write an XML parser. It'd be easier for you, faster to run, and just better overall.
For more neat info on this, check out this site. It does a great job of explaining all this stuff in layman's terms.
Don't parse XML/HTML with regex, use a proper XML/HTML parser and a powerful xpath query.
theory :
According to the compiling theory, XML/HTML can't be parsed using regex based on finite state machine. Due to hierarchical construction of XML/HTML you need to use a pushdown automaton and manipulate LALR grammar using tool like YACC.
realLife©®™ everyday tool in a shell :
You can use one of the following :
xmllint often installed by default with libxml2, xpath1 (check my wrapper to have newlines delimited output
xmlstarlet can edit, select, transform... Not installed by default, xpath1
xpath installed via perl's module XML::XPath, xpath1
xidel xpath3
saxon-lint my own project, wrapper over #Michael Kay's Saxon-HE Java library, xpath3
or you can use high level languages and proper libs, I think of :
python's lxml (from lxml import etree)
perl's XML::LibXML, XML::XPath, XML::Twig::XPath, HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath
ruby nokogiri, check this example
php DOMXpath, check this example
Check: Using regular expressions with HTML tags
In a purely theoretical sense, it is impossible for regular expressions to parse XML. They are defined in a way that allows them no memory of any previous state, thus preventing the correct matching of an arbitrary tag, and they cannot penetrate to an arbitrary depth of nesting, since the nesting would need to be built into the regular expression.
Modern regex parsers, however, are built for their utility to the developer, rather than their adherence to a precise definition. As such, we have things like back-references and recursion that make use of knowledge of previous states. Using these, it is remarkably simple to create a regex that can explore, validate, or parse XML.
Consider for example,
(?:
<!\-\-[\S\s]*?\-\->
|
<([\w\-\.]+)[^>]*?
(?:
\/>
|
>
(?:
[^<]
|
(?R)
)*
<\/\1>
)
)
This will find the next properly formed XML tag or comment, and it will only find it if it's entire contents are properly formed. (This expression has been tested using Notepad++, which uses Boost C++'s regex library, which closely approximates PCRE.)
Here's how it works:
The first chunk matches a comment. It's necessary for this to come first so that it will deal with any commented-out code that otherwise might cause hang ups.
If that doesn't match, it will look for the beginning of a tag. Note that it uses parentheses to capture the name.
This tag will either end in a />, thus completing the tag, or it will end with a >, in which case it will continue by examining the tag's contents.
It will continue parsing until it reaches a <, at which point it will recurse back to the beginning of the expression, allowing it to deal with either a comment or a new tag.
It will continue through the loop until it arrives at either the end of the text or at a < that it cannot parse. Failing to match will, of course, cause it to start the process over. Otherwise, the < is presumably the beginning of the closing tag for this iteration. Using the back-reference inside a closing tag <\/\1>, it will match the opening tag for the current iteration (depth). There's only one capturing group, so this match is a simple matter. This makes it independent of the names of the tags used, although you could modify the capturing group to capture only specific tags, if you need to.
At this point it will either kick out of the current recursion, up to the next level or end with a match.
This example solves problems dealing with whitespace or identifying relevant content through the use of character groups that merely negate < or >, or in the case of the comments, by using [\S\s], which will match anything, including carriage returns and new lines, even in single-line mode, continuing until it reaches a
-->. Hence, it simply treats everything as valid until it reaches something meaningful.
For most purposes, a regex like this isn't particularly useful. It will validate that XML is properly formed, but that's all it will really do, and it doesn't account for properties (although this would be an easy addition). It's only this simple because it leaves out real world issues like this, as well as definitions of tag names. Fitting it for real use would make it much more of a beast. In general, a true XML parser would be far superior. This one is probably best suited for teaching how recursion works.
Long story short: use an XML parser for real work, and use this if you want to play around with regexes.
There is no day on SO that passes without a question about parsing (X)HTML or XML with regular expressions being asked.
While it's relatively easy to come up with examples that demonstrates the non-viability of regexes for this task or with a collection of expressions to represent the concept, I could still not find on SO a formal explanation of why this is not possible done in layman's terms.
The only formal explanations I could find so far on this site are probably extremely accurate, but also quite cryptic to the self-taught programmer:
the flaw here is that HTML is a Chomsky Type 2 grammar (context free
grammar) and RegEx is a Chomsky Type 3 grammar (regular expression)
or:
Regular expressions can only match regular languages but HTML is a
context-free language.
or:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
or:
The Pumping lemma for regular languages is the reason why you can't do
that.
[To be fair: the majority of the above explanation link to wikipedia pages, but these are not much easier to understand than the answers themselves].
So my question is: could somebody please provide a translation in layman's terms of the formal explanations given above of why it is not possible to use regex for parsing (X)HTML/XML?
EDIT: After reading the first answer I thought that I should clarify: I am looking for a "translation" that also briefely explains the concepts it tries to translate: at the end of an answer, the reader should have a rough idea - for example - of what "regular language" and "context-free grammar" mean...
Concentrate on this one:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
The definition of regular expressions is equivalent to the fact that a test of whether a string matches the pattern can be performed by a finite automaton (one different automaton for each pattern). A finite automaton has no memory - no stack, no heap, no infinite tape to scribble on. All it has is a finite number of internal states, each of which can read a unit of input from the string being tested, and use that to decide which state to move to next. As special cases, it has two termination states: "yes, that matched", and "no, that didn't match".
HTML, on the other hand, has structures that can nest arbitrarily deep. To determine whether a file is valid HTML or not, you need to check that all the closing tags match a previous opening tag. To understand it, you need to know which element is being closed. Without any means to "remember" what opening tags you've seen, no chance.
Note however that most "regex" libraries actually permit more than just the strict definition of regular expressions. If they can match back-references, then they've gone beyond a regular language. So the reason why you shouldn't use a regex library on HTML is a little more complex than the simple fact that HTML is not regular.
The fact that HTML doesn't represent a regular language is a red herring. Regular expression and regular languages sound sort of similar, but are not - they do share the same origin, but there's a notable distance between the academic "regular languages" and the current matching power of engines. In fact, almost all modern regular expression engines support non-regular features - a simple example is (.*)\1. which uses backreferencing to match a repeated sequence of characters - for example 123123, or bonbon. Matching of recursive/balanced structures make these even more fun.
Wikipedia puts this nicely, in a quote by Larry Wall:
'Regular expressions' [...] are only marginally related to real regular expressions. Nevertheless, the term has grown with the capabilities of our pattern matching engines, so I'm not going to try to fight linguistic necessity here. I will, however, generally call them "regexes" (or "regexen", when I'm in an Anglo-Saxon mood).
"Regular expression can only match regular languages", as you can see, is nothing more than a commonly stated fallacy.
So, why not then?
A good reason not to match HTML with regular expression is that "just because you can doesn't mean you should". While may be possible - there are simply better tools for the job. Considering:
Valid HTML is harder/more complex than you may think.
There are many types of "valid" HTML - what is valid in HTML, for example, isn't valid in XHTML.
Much of the free-form HTML found on the internet is not valid anyway. HTML libraries do a good job of dealing with these as well, and were tested for many of these common cases.
Very often it is impossible to match a part of the data without parsing it as a whole. For example, you might be looking for all titles, and end up matching inside a comment or a string literal. <h1>.*?</h1> may be a bold attempt at finding the main title, but it might find:
<!-- <h1>not the title!</h1> -->
Or even:
<script>
var s = "Certainly <h1>not the title!</h1>";
</script>
Last point is the most important:
Using a dedicated HTML parser is better than any regex you can come up with. Very often, XPath allows a better expressive way of finding the data you need, and using an HTML parser is much easier than most people realize.
A good summary of the subject, and an important comment on when mixing Regex and HTML may be appropriate, can be found in Jeff Atwood's blog: Parsing Html The Cthulhu Way.
When is it better to use a regular expression to parse HTML?
In most cases, it is better to use XPath on the DOM structure a library can give you. Still, against popular opinion, there are a few cases when I would strongly recommend using a regex and not a parser library:
Given a few of these conditions:
When you need a one-time update of your HTML files, and you know the structure is consistent.
When you have a very small snippet of HTML.
When you aren't dealing with an HTML file, but a similar templating engine (it can be very hard to find a parser in that case).
When you want to change parts of the HTML, but not all of it - a parser, to my knowledge, cannot answer this request: it will parse the whole document, and save a whole document, changing parts you never wanted to change.
Because HTML can have unlimited nesting of <tags><inside><tags and="<things><that><look></like></tags>"></inside></each></other> and regex can't really cope with that because it can't track a history of what it's descended into and come out of.
A simple construct that illustrates the difficulty:
<body><div id="foo">Hi there! <div id="bar">Bye!</div></div></body>
99.9% of generalized regex-based extraction routines will be unable to correctly give me everything inside the div with the ID foo, because they can't tell the closing tag for that div from the closing tag for the bar div. That is because they have no way of saying "okay, I've now descended into the second of two divs, so the next div close I see brings me back out one, and the one after that is the close tag for the first". Programmers typically respond by devising special-case regexes for the specific situation, which then break as soon as more tags are introduced inside foo and have to be unsnarled at tremendous cost in time and frustration. This is why people get mad about the whole thing.
A regular language is a language that can be matched by a finite state machine.
(Understanding Finite State machines, Push-down machines, and Turing machines is basically the curriculum of a fourth year college CS Course.)
Consider the following machine, which recognizes the string "hi".
(Start) --Read h-->(A)--Read i-->(Succeed)
\ \
\ -- read any other value-->(Fail)
-- read any other value-->(Fail)
This is a simple machine to recognize a regular language; Each expression in parenthesis is a state, and each arrow is a transition. Building a machine like this will allow you to test any input string against a regular language -- hence, a regular expression.
HTML requires you to know more than just what state you are in -- it requires a history of what you have seen before, to match tag nesting. You can accomplish this if you add a stack to the machine, but then it is no longer "regular". This is called a Push-down machine, and recognizes a grammar.
A regular expression is a machine with a finite (and typically rather small) number of discrete states.
To parse XML, C, or any other language with arbitrary nesting of language elements, you need to remember how deep you are. That is, you must be able to count braces/brackets/tags.
You cannot count with finite memory. There may be more brace levels than you have states! You might be able to parse a subset of your language that restricts the number of nesting levels, but it would be very tedious.
A grammar is a formal definition of where words can go. For example, adjectives preceed nouns in English grammar, but follow nouns en la gramática española.
Context-free means that the grammar works universally in all contexts. Context-sensitive means there are additional rules in certain contexts.
In C#, for example, using means something different in using System; at the top of files, than using (var sw = new StringWriter (...)). A more relevant example is the following code within code:
void Start ()
{
string myCode = #"
void Start()
{
Console.WriteLine (""x"");
}
";
}
There's another practical reason for not using regular expressions to parse XML and HTML that has nothing to do with the computer science theory at all: your regular expression will either be hideously complicated, or it will be wrong.
For example, it's all very well writing a regular expression to match
<price>10.65</price>
But if your code is to be correct, then:
It must allow whitespace after the element name in both start and end tag
If the document is in a namespace, then it should allow any namespace prefix to be used
It should probably allow and ignore any unknown attributes appearing in the start tag (depending on the semantics of the particular vocabulary)
It may need to allow whitespace before and after the decimal value (again, depending on the detailed rules of the particular XML vocabulary).
It should not match something that looks like an element, but is actually in a comment or CDATA section (this becomes especially important if there is a possibility of malicious data trying to fool your parser).
It may need to provide diagnostics if the input is invalid.
Of course some of this depends on the quality standards you are applying. We see a lot of problems on StackOverflow with people having to generate XML in a particular way (for example, with no whitespace in the tags) because it is being read by an application that requires it to be written in a particular way. If your code has any kind of longevity then it's important that it should be able to process incoming XML written in any way that the XML standard permits, and not just the one sample input document that you are testing your code on.
So others have gone and given brief definitions for most of these things, but I don't really think they cover WHY normal regex's are what they are.
There are some great resources on what a finite state machine is, but in short, a seminal paper in computer science proved that the basic grammar of regex's (the standard ones, used by grep, not the extended ones, like PCRE) can always be manipulated into a finite-state machine, meaning a 'machine' where you are always in a box, and have a limited number of ways to move to the next box. In short, you can always tell what the next 'thing' you need to do is just by looking at the current character. (And yes, even when it comes to things like 'match at least 4, but no more than 5 times', you can still create a machine like this) (I should note that note that the machine I describe here is technically only a subtype of finite-state machines, but it can implement any other subtype, so...)
This is great because you can always very efficiently evaluate such a machine, even for large inputs. Studying these sorts of questions (how does my algorithm behave when the number of things I feed it gets big) is called studying the computational complexity of the technique. If you're familiar with how a lot of calculus deals with how functions behave as they approach infinity, well, that's pretty much it.
So whats so great about a standard regular expression? Well, any given regex can match a string of length N in no more than O(N) time (meaning that doubling the length of your input doubles the time it takes: it says nothing about the speed for a given input) (of course, some are faster: the regex * could match in O(1), meaning constant, time). The reason is simple: remember, because the system has only a few paths from each state, you never 'go back', and you only need to check each character once. That means even if I pass you a 100 gigabyte file, you'll still be able to crunch through it pretty quickly: which is great!.
Now, its pretty clear why you can't use such a machine to parse arbitrary XML: you can have infinite tags-in-tags, and to parse correctly you need an infinite number of states. But, if you allow recursive replaces, a PCRE is Turing complete: so it could totally parse HTML! Even if you don't, a PCRE can parse any context-free grammar, including XML. So the answer is "yeah, you can". Now, it might take exponential time (you can't use our neat finite-state machine, so you need to use a big fancy parser that can rewind, which means that a crafted expression will take centuries on a big file), but still. Possible.
But lets talk real quick about why that's an awful idea. First of all, while you'll see a ton of people saying "omg, regex's are so powerful", the reality is... they aren't. What they are is simple. The language is dead simple: you only need to know a few meta-characters and their meanings, and you can understand (eventually) anything written in it. However, the issue is that those meta-characters are all you have. See, they can do a lot, but they're meant to express fairly simple things concisely, not to try and describe a complicated process.
And XML sure is complicated. It's pretty easy to find examples in some of the other answers: you can't match stuff inside comment fields, ect. Representing all of that in a programming language takes work: and that's with the benefits of variables and functions! PCRE's, for all their features, can't come close to that. Any hand-made implementation will be buggy: scanning blobs of meta-characters to check matching parenthesis is hard, and it's not like you can comment your code. It'd be easier to define a meta-language, and compile that down to a regex: and at that point, you might as well just take the language you wrote your meta-compiler with and write an XML parser. It'd be easier for you, faster to run, and just better overall.
For more neat info on this, check out this site. It does a great job of explaining all this stuff in layman's terms.
Don't parse XML/HTML with regex, use a proper XML/HTML parser and a powerful xpath query.
theory :
According to the compiling theory, XML/HTML can't be parsed using regex based on finite state machine. Due to hierarchical construction of XML/HTML you need to use a pushdown automaton and manipulate LALR grammar using tool like YACC.
realLife©®™ everyday tool in a shell :
You can use one of the following :
xmllint often installed by default with libxml2, xpath1 (check my wrapper to have newlines delimited output
xmlstarlet can edit, select, transform... Not installed by default, xpath1
xpath installed via perl's module XML::XPath, xpath1
xidel xpath3
saxon-lint my own project, wrapper over #Michael Kay's Saxon-HE Java library, xpath3
or you can use high level languages and proper libs, I think of :
python's lxml (from lxml import etree)
perl's XML::LibXML, XML::XPath, XML::Twig::XPath, HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath
ruby nokogiri, check this example
php DOMXpath, check this example
Check: Using regular expressions with HTML tags
In a purely theoretical sense, it is impossible for regular expressions to parse XML. They are defined in a way that allows them no memory of any previous state, thus preventing the correct matching of an arbitrary tag, and they cannot penetrate to an arbitrary depth of nesting, since the nesting would need to be built into the regular expression.
Modern regex parsers, however, are built for their utility to the developer, rather than their adherence to a precise definition. As such, we have things like back-references and recursion that make use of knowledge of previous states. Using these, it is remarkably simple to create a regex that can explore, validate, or parse XML.
Consider for example,
(?:
<!\-\-[\S\s]*?\-\->
|
<([\w\-\.]+)[^>]*?
(?:
\/>
|
>
(?:
[^<]
|
(?R)
)*
<\/\1>
)
)
This will find the next properly formed XML tag or comment, and it will only find it if it's entire contents are properly formed. (This expression has been tested using Notepad++, which uses Boost C++'s regex library, which closely approximates PCRE.)
Here's how it works:
The first chunk matches a comment. It's necessary for this to come first so that it will deal with any commented-out code that otherwise might cause hang ups.
If that doesn't match, it will look for the beginning of a tag. Note that it uses parentheses to capture the name.
This tag will either end in a />, thus completing the tag, or it will end with a >, in which case it will continue by examining the tag's contents.
It will continue parsing until it reaches a <, at which point it will recurse back to the beginning of the expression, allowing it to deal with either a comment or a new tag.
It will continue through the loop until it arrives at either the end of the text or at a < that it cannot parse. Failing to match will, of course, cause it to start the process over. Otherwise, the < is presumably the beginning of the closing tag for this iteration. Using the back-reference inside a closing tag <\/\1>, it will match the opening tag for the current iteration (depth). There's only one capturing group, so this match is a simple matter. This makes it independent of the names of the tags used, although you could modify the capturing group to capture only specific tags, if you need to.
At this point it will either kick out of the current recursion, up to the next level or end with a match.
This example solves problems dealing with whitespace or identifying relevant content through the use of character groups that merely negate < or >, or in the case of the comments, by using [\S\s], which will match anything, including carriage returns and new lines, even in single-line mode, continuing until it reaches a
-->. Hence, it simply treats everything as valid until it reaches something meaningful.
For most purposes, a regex like this isn't particularly useful. It will validate that XML is properly formed, but that's all it will really do, and it doesn't account for properties (although this would be an easy addition). It's only this simple because it leaves out real world issues like this, as well as definitions of tag names. Fitting it for real use would make it much more of a beast. In general, a true XML parser would be far superior. This one is probably best suited for teaching how recursion works.
Long story short: use an XML parser for real work, and use this if you want to play around with regexes.
I am working on this regex
((([(]?[-]?[0-9]*[.]?[0-9]+)+([\/\+\-\*])+)+([0-9]*[.]?[0-9]+[)]?)+[\+\-\*\/]?([0-9]*)*)+
I need this to accept any expression like: (2+2*7)-4+2/(5-3)+2
and I want to avoid expressions like: (2+3)- or 2+2-(2+3
The goal is to get the expression from the user and break it down into tokens, but before doing that I want to check the validity of the input.
In their most general form, regular expressions can describe regular languages. On the other hand, math formulae are usually formalized as context-free languages, which are a superset of the regular languages. The Chomsky hierarchy make this distinction clear: regular languages are type 3, while context-free ones are of the more general type 2.
Intuitively, the key distinction here is that regular languages cannot count, so they cannot balance opening and closing parentheses. A regular language can be detected using a finite state automaton, but using only a finite number of states, you cannot possibly keep track of how many opening parentheses you have seen so far, since there might be an arbitrary number of them.
You might want to investigate the distinction between a lexer and a parser. Usually you'd use the former, with regular expressions, to tokenize your streams into numbers, operators and the likes, while you'd use the latter to build and check expressions composed from these tokens.
I have an ANTLR3 simple grammar parser that takes short lines of text and convert them to Java objects. Next, I have a big list of text lines. Some of them (less than 1%) can be converted because they match the grammar.
I need to pass all of them through the parser in order to understand which are convertible, and create a collection of Java objects. Very time-consuming operation. Would be much more effective to pass them through a regular expression before sending to ANTLR3.
I can create such a regex myself, but would be much better to get it dynamically from ANTLR3 parser. Is it possible to do?
In general, only regular languages can have a regular expression describing them. (Most RE-engines support features that match also some non-regular languages (for example by back-references), but still not all context-free or even general formal languages.)
I'm not really an antlr-expert, but I suppose its grammars can match languages which are not RE-matchable.
So, even the theoretical solvability of your problem is not really given, it depends on the grammar.
It may be that
your grammar is in fact a regular grammar, or
that there is a regular language which is a slight superset of your grammars language - thus the RE can filter out most non-matching lines, while some will only be filtered out by the grammar/parser.
There most probably is no certain way to be sure without seeing your grammar.
Also, a regular expression is not necessarily faster than your parser would be.
To be specific of ANTLR can parse LL(*) subclass of context free grammars.
To tell if your language is Regular, see if you can apply the pumping lemma for regular languages.