How to write regexp literal in match expression?
This question is about the proper way to write regular expression literals in a match expression under bash.
In zsh, the match below succeeds, as I expected:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
Not so in bash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
1
I know that this match succeeds in bash
$ ( regexp='^ [0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $regexp ]]; echo $? )
0
...but it requires assigning the regular expression to an intermediate variable.
My question is: How does one write an arbitrary regular expression literal in a match expression under bash?
bash shell-script scripting regular-expression syntax
add a comment |
This question is about the proper way to write regular expression literals in a match expression under bash.
In zsh, the match below succeeds, as I expected:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
Not so in bash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
1
I know that this match succeeds in bash
$ ( regexp='^ [0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $regexp ]]; echo $? )
0
...but it requires assigning the regular expression to an intermediate variable.
My question is: How does one write an arbitrary regular expression literal in a match expression under bash?
bash shell-script scripting regular-expression syntax
add a comment |
This question is about the proper way to write regular expression literals in a match expression under bash.
In zsh, the match below succeeds, as I expected:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
Not so in bash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
1
I know that this match succeeds in bash
$ ( regexp='^ [0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $regexp ]]; echo $? )
0
...but it requires assigning the regular expression to an intermediate variable.
My question is: How does one write an arbitrary regular expression literal in a match expression under bash?
bash shell-script scripting regular-expression syntax
This question is about the proper way to write regular expression literals in a match expression under bash.
In zsh, the match below succeeds, as I expected:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
Not so in bash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
1
I know that this match succeeds in bash
$ ( regexp='^ [0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $regexp ]]; echo $? )
0
...but it requires assigning the regular expression to an intermediate variable.
My question is: How does one write an arbitrary regular expression literal in a match expression under bash?
bash shell-script scripting regular-expression syntax
bash shell-script scripting regular-expression syntax
asked Nov 21 '18 at 20:09
kjokjo
4,083103764
4,083103764
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It's best to put it in a variable, as recommended by the Bash reference manual 3.2.4.2 Conditional Constructs:
Storing the regular expression in a shell variable is often a useful way to avoid problems with quoting characters that are special to the shell. It is sometimes difficult to specify a regular expression literally without using quotes, or to keep track of the quoting used by regular expressions while paying attention to the shell’s quote removal. Using a shell variable to store the pattern decreases these problems.
However in order to write it directly inside of the bash extended test you need to remove the quotes and escape the spaces:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
add a comment |
In bash, the canonical answer is: use a var
$ reg='^ [0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
That works for spaces, backslash, and many other things:
$ reg='^ 123 $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
If you want to write it as a literal you need to play (carefully) with quoting.
You need to quote the parts that need to be literal and leave the parts that should be interpreted as a regex un-quoted. The space needs quoting. Here using backslah:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
And here using double quotes:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
But that "quoting" gets real messy with things like a backslash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+"\"[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
0
Simpler, safer:
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
And, no, you don't need a subshell to do that (the parenthesis in your question).
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
Yes, that may seem annoying.
And, yes, the command you presented happens to work in zsh:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
But quoting is always a problem (in any shell), what should happen to backslash ?:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ ' 123 ' ]]; echo $?
zsh: failed to compile regex: Invalid back reference
1
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+\3 $' ]]; echo $?
0
Double it !. It is not exactly: literal.
I know that the subshell is not needed for the match; I use subshells to avoid polluting my current shell's namespace with a variable that I need to use only once.
– kjo
Nov 21 '18 at 21:08
Anunset regexp
is always faster than a subshell. @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 21 '18 at 23:12
Maybe, but I don't care about the few milliseconds here and there. The subshell takes fewer keystrokes, it is robust to any number of changes I may do in the subshell (not just the setting of one variable), and there's no chance I will forget to rununset
afterwards.
– kjo
Nov 22 '18 at 16:54
Sure, why fight the waste if it is easier?. Why reduce the use of plastics until we get a plastic planet? @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 23 '18 at 0:49
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483292%2fhow-to-write-regexp-literal-in-match-expression%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's best to put it in a variable, as recommended by the Bash reference manual 3.2.4.2 Conditional Constructs:
Storing the regular expression in a shell variable is often a useful way to avoid problems with quoting characters that are special to the shell. It is sometimes difficult to specify a regular expression literally without using quotes, or to keep track of the quoting used by regular expressions while paying attention to the shell’s quote removal. Using a shell variable to store the pattern decreases these problems.
However in order to write it directly inside of the bash extended test you need to remove the quotes and escape the spaces:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
add a comment |
It's best to put it in a variable, as recommended by the Bash reference manual 3.2.4.2 Conditional Constructs:
Storing the regular expression in a shell variable is often a useful way to avoid problems with quoting characters that are special to the shell. It is sometimes difficult to specify a regular expression literally without using quotes, or to keep track of the quoting used by regular expressions while paying attention to the shell’s quote removal. Using a shell variable to store the pattern decreases these problems.
However in order to write it directly inside of the bash extended test you need to remove the quotes and escape the spaces:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
add a comment |
It's best to put it in a variable, as recommended by the Bash reference manual 3.2.4.2 Conditional Constructs:
Storing the regular expression in a shell variable is often a useful way to avoid problems with quoting characters that are special to the shell. It is sometimes difficult to specify a regular expression literally without using quotes, or to keep track of the quoting used by regular expressions while paying attention to the shell’s quote removal. Using a shell variable to store the pattern decreases these problems.
However in order to write it directly inside of the bash extended test you need to remove the quotes and escape the spaces:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
It's best to put it in a variable, as recommended by the Bash reference manual 3.2.4.2 Conditional Constructs:
Storing the regular expression in a shell variable is often a useful way to avoid problems with quoting characters that are special to the shell. It is sometimes difficult to specify a regular expression literally without using quotes, or to keep track of the quoting used by regular expressions while paying attention to the shell’s quote removal. Using a shell variable to store the pattern decreases these problems.
However in order to write it directly inside of the bash extended test you need to remove the quotes and escape the spaces:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
answered Nov 21 '18 at 20:21
Jesse_bJesse_b
12.1k23064
12.1k23064
add a comment |
add a comment |
In bash, the canonical answer is: use a var
$ reg='^ [0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
That works for spaces, backslash, and many other things:
$ reg='^ 123 $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
If you want to write it as a literal you need to play (carefully) with quoting.
You need to quote the parts that need to be literal and leave the parts that should be interpreted as a regex un-quoted. The space needs quoting. Here using backslah:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
And here using double quotes:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
But that "quoting" gets real messy with things like a backslash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+"\"[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
0
Simpler, safer:
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
And, no, you don't need a subshell to do that (the parenthesis in your question).
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
Yes, that may seem annoying.
And, yes, the command you presented happens to work in zsh:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
But quoting is always a problem (in any shell), what should happen to backslash ?:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ ' 123 ' ]]; echo $?
zsh: failed to compile regex: Invalid back reference
1
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+\3 $' ]]; echo $?
0
Double it !. It is not exactly: literal.
I know that the subshell is not needed for the match; I use subshells to avoid polluting my current shell's namespace with a variable that I need to use only once.
– kjo
Nov 21 '18 at 21:08
Anunset regexp
is always faster than a subshell. @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 21 '18 at 23:12
Maybe, but I don't care about the few milliseconds here and there. The subshell takes fewer keystrokes, it is robust to any number of changes I may do in the subshell (not just the setting of one variable), and there's no chance I will forget to rununset
afterwards.
– kjo
Nov 22 '18 at 16:54
Sure, why fight the waste if it is easier?. Why reduce the use of plastics until we get a plastic planet? @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 23 '18 at 0:49
add a comment |
In bash, the canonical answer is: use a var
$ reg='^ [0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
That works for spaces, backslash, and many other things:
$ reg='^ 123 $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
If you want to write it as a literal you need to play (carefully) with quoting.
You need to quote the parts that need to be literal and leave the parts that should be interpreted as a regex un-quoted. The space needs quoting. Here using backslah:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
And here using double quotes:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
But that "quoting" gets real messy with things like a backslash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+"\"[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
0
Simpler, safer:
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
And, no, you don't need a subshell to do that (the parenthesis in your question).
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
Yes, that may seem annoying.
And, yes, the command you presented happens to work in zsh:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
But quoting is always a problem (in any shell), what should happen to backslash ?:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ ' 123 ' ]]; echo $?
zsh: failed to compile regex: Invalid back reference
1
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+\3 $' ]]; echo $?
0
Double it !. It is not exactly: literal.
I know that the subshell is not needed for the match; I use subshells to avoid polluting my current shell's namespace with a variable that I need to use only once.
– kjo
Nov 21 '18 at 21:08
Anunset regexp
is always faster than a subshell. @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 21 '18 at 23:12
Maybe, but I don't care about the few milliseconds here and there. The subshell takes fewer keystrokes, it is robust to any number of changes I may do in the subshell (not just the setting of one variable), and there's no chance I will forget to rununset
afterwards.
– kjo
Nov 22 '18 at 16:54
Sure, why fight the waste if it is easier?. Why reduce the use of plastics until we get a plastic planet? @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 23 '18 at 0:49
add a comment |
In bash, the canonical answer is: use a var
$ reg='^ [0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
That works for spaces, backslash, and many other things:
$ reg='^ 123 $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
If you want to write it as a literal you need to play (carefully) with quoting.
You need to quote the parts that need to be literal and leave the parts that should be interpreted as a regex un-quoted. The space needs quoting. Here using backslah:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
And here using double quotes:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
But that "quoting" gets real messy with things like a backslash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+"\"[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
0
Simpler, safer:
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
And, no, you don't need a subshell to do that (the parenthesis in your question).
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
Yes, that may seem annoying.
And, yes, the command you presented happens to work in zsh:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
But quoting is always a problem (in any shell), what should happen to backslash ?:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ ' 123 ' ]]; echo $?
zsh: failed to compile regex: Invalid back reference
1
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+\3 $' ]]; echo $?
0
Double it !. It is not exactly: literal.
In bash, the canonical answer is: use a var
$ reg='^ [0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
That works for spaces, backslash, and many other things:
$ reg='^ 123 $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
If you want to write it as a literal you need to play (carefully) with quoting.
You need to quote the parts that need to be literal and leave the parts that should be interpreted as a regex un-quoted. The space needs quoting. Here using backslah:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^ [0-9]+ $ ]]; echo $?
0
And here using double quotes:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
But that "quoting" gets real messy with things like a backslash:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ ^" "[0-9]+"\"[0-9]+" "$ ]]; echo $?
0
Simpler, safer:
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
0
And, no, you don't need a subshell to do that (the parenthesis in your question).
$ reg='^ [0-9]+\[0-9]+ $'; [[ ' 123 ' =~ $reg ]]; echo $?
Yes, that may seem annoying.
And, yes, the command you presented happens to work in zsh:
$ [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+ $' ]]; echo $?
0
But quoting is always a problem (in any shell), what should happen to backslash ?:
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ ' 123 ' ]]; echo $?
zsh: failed to compile regex: Invalid back reference
1
% [[ ' 123 ' =~ '^ [0-9]+\3 $' ]]; echo $?
0
Double it !. It is not exactly: literal.
edited Nov 21 '18 at 20:40
answered Nov 21 '18 at 20:23
IsaacIsaac
11.6k11652
11.6k11652
I know that the subshell is not needed for the match; I use subshells to avoid polluting my current shell's namespace with a variable that I need to use only once.
– kjo
Nov 21 '18 at 21:08
Anunset regexp
is always faster than a subshell. @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 21 '18 at 23:12
Maybe, but I don't care about the few milliseconds here and there. The subshell takes fewer keystrokes, it is robust to any number of changes I may do in the subshell (not just the setting of one variable), and there's no chance I will forget to rununset
afterwards.
– kjo
Nov 22 '18 at 16:54
Sure, why fight the waste if it is easier?. Why reduce the use of plastics until we get a plastic planet? @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 23 '18 at 0:49
add a comment |
I know that the subshell is not needed for the match; I use subshells to avoid polluting my current shell's namespace with a variable that I need to use only once.
– kjo
Nov 21 '18 at 21:08
Anunset regexp
is always faster than a subshell. @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 21 '18 at 23:12
Maybe, but I don't care about the few milliseconds here and there. The subshell takes fewer keystrokes, it is robust to any number of changes I may do in the subshell (not just the setting of one variable), and there's no chance I will forget to rununset
afterwards.
– kjo
Nov 22 '18 at 16:54
Sure, why fight the waste if it is easier?. Why reduce the use of plastics until we get a plastic planet? @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 23 '18 at 0:49
I know that the subshell is not needed for the match; I use subshells to avoid polluting my current shell's namespace with a variable that I need to use only once.
– kjo
Nov 21 '18 at 21:08
I know that the subshell is not needed for the match; I use subshells to avoid polluting my current shell's namespace with a variable that I need to use only once.
– kjo
Nov 21 '18 at 21:08
An
unset regexp
is always faster than a subshell. @kjo– Isaac
Nov 21 '18 at 23:12
An
unset regexp
is always faster than a subshell. @kjo– Isaac
Nov 21 '18 at 23:12
Maybe, but I don't care about the few milliseconds here and there. The subshell takes fewer keystrokes, it is robust to any number of changes I may do in the subshell (not just the setting of one variable), and there's no chance I will forget to run
unset
afterwards.– kjo
Nov 22 '18 at 16:54
Maybe, but I don't care about the few milliseconds here and there. The subshell takes fewer keystrokes, it is robust to any number of changes I may do in the subshell (not just the setting of one variable), and there's no chance I will forget to run
unset
afterwards.– kjo
Nov 22 '18 at 16:54
Sure, why fight the waste if it is easier?. Why reduce the use of plastics until we get a plastic planet? @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 23 '18 at 0:49
Sure, why fight the waste if it is easier?. Why reduce the use of plastics until we get a plastic planet? @kjo
– Isaac
Nov 23 '18 at 0:49
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483292%2fhow-to-write-regexp-literal-in-match-expression%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown