Updated 2016-02-05 20:58:52 by pooryorick

Tcl Regular Expressions, implemented by Henry Spencer, are called Advanced Regular Expressions.

Disambiguation  edit

"Regular Expressions" is the name of an at-least-monthly column on scripting languages CL has co-authored from 1998 to 2009. See Cameron Laird's Personal Notes on Regular Expressions.

Documentation  edit

the official reference

Tcl Commands  edit


See Also  edit

regmap, by SS
apply scripts to matching substrings
regular expression
about regular expressions in general, including features not found in Tcl, and the theory behind them.
New Regular Expression Features in Tcl 8.1
Beginning Regular Expressions
Regular Expression Examples
Advanced Regular Expression Examples
Regular Expression Debugging Tips
Henry Spencer's "Tcl" Regex Library, comp.compilers, 2007-10-01
regex - Henry Spencer's regular expression libraries
links to Henry Spencer's original release in 1994, "regex3.8a.tar.gz", that was included in 4.4 BSD Unix, Walter Waldo's port of Henry's Tcl regex in Tcl 8.1, and Thomas Lackener's port from Tcl-8.5a3
Chapter 11: Regular Expressions, Book Practical Programming in Tcl and Tk, 3rd Edition, by Brent Welch
Tcl Scores High in RE Performance, Cameron Laird and Kathryn Soraiz, 2007-02
Drawbacks of Tcl's Regexps
TCL regex implementation beats whole competition. Even C with PCRE and Boost regex, (shootout.alioth.debian.org), reddit.com, 2008-02-07
Unicode and Localisation Support
interesting in a Tcl context because it illustrates that Perl regular expressions, being derived from Spencer's earlier regular expression attempts, suffer Unicode issues that Tcl doesn't
Regular Expressions: Now You Have Two Problems, Jeff Atwood, 2008-06-27
some pulpit-thumping about regular expressions

Resources  edit

includes a regular expression debugger
Visual REGEXP [1]
a visual regular expression development and test utility
contains tkREM which is a regular expression maker. Perhaps someone familar with it would like to discuss it.
a Regular expression wizard written in bash that converts human sentences into regular expressions. It can be used to build up regular expressions suitable for use in Tcl.
another tool to assist in developing regular expressions
one of a couple extensions prior to Tcl 8.1 that that provided a superset of regular expression functionality. This does not provide all the power of Tcl 8.1 and newer, but at least it is more than was available before 8.1.
a lexical analyzer which uses Tcl regular expressions to do the matching
Yeti and Ylex
another lexical analyser, parser generator.

Design  edit

Tcl's regular expression engine is an interesting and subtle object for study in its own regard. While Perl is the language that deserves its close identification with RE capabilities, Tcl's engine competes well with it and every other one. In fact, although he doesn't favor Tcl as a language, RE expert Jeffrey Friedl has written that "Tcl's [RE] engine is a hybrid with the best of both worlds."

See Henry Spencer's reply in tcl 8.2 regexp not doing non-greedy matching correctly, comp.lang.tcl, 1999-09-20.

Most common regular expression implementations (notably Perl and direct derivatives of the PCRE library) exhibit poor performance in certain pathological cases. Henry Spencer's complete reimplementation as a "hybrid" engine appears to address some of those problems. See Regular Expression Matching Can be Simple and Fast (but is slow in Java, Perl PHP, Python, Ruby,...), Russ Cox, 2007-01, for some fascinating benchmarks.

Lars H: A very nice paper! Highly recommended for anyone interested in the internals of regular expression engines, and a good introduction to the theory.

Description  edit

The regular expressions accepted by regexp and regsub are called "Advanced Regular Expressions'', or ARE's, and are slightly different from the extended regular expressions's defined by POSIX.

An expression is composed of branches. A branch is composed of atoms. Each type of atom has a structure as described below.

Atoms  edit

An atom is a composable pattern that matches a unit of text. More complex patterns are formed by composing atoms. A single character often suffices as an atom that matches the same character in the text. Other characters are interpreted in special ways, and compose an atomic pattern. . is a simple one-character atom that matches any one character in the text. \n is a two-character atom that matches a single newline. (hello) is a seven-character atomic pattern that matches the word, "hello", and also captures the matching text for later reuse.

The available atoms are:
any character that occurs outside of a context where it has a special regular expression meaning matches itself.
matches any character.
\k, where k is a single non-alphanumeric character
matches the literal character k.
\c, where c is alphanumeric (possibly followed by other characters)
matches a character as described in Regular Expression Escape Sequence.
matches any character in the set of characters. If the first character in characters is ^ (caret), then only characters not in characters match. - (minus) between any two characters in characters specifies the range of characters starting with the character to the left of it and ending with the character to the right of it. In contrast with other regular expression engines, when \ occurs in characters, it does not lose its special meaning.
matches an empty string, capturing it.
matches an empty string without capturing.
Parentheses surrounding an expression specify a nested expression. The substring matching expression is captured and can be referred to via the back reference mechanism, and also captured into any corresponding match variable specified as an argument to the command.
matches expression without capturing it.
atoms|atoms?|atoms ...?
| delimits branches of atoms, only one of which is chosen as the matching pattern. In choosing a branch, the longest match is preferred. An empty branch matches the empty string.

Quantifiers  edit

A quantifier specifies how many consecutive occurrences of the preceding atom should match. Unless otherwise specified, a quantifier is greedy (see explanation below).
matches zero or more. By default, matches as many as possible.
matches a one or more. By default, matches as many as possible.
matches zero or one.
matches exactly m.
matches at least m. By default, matches as many as possible.
matches at least m and at most n. By default, matches as many as possible up to n. n currently may not be greater than 255.
matches zero or more, but as few as possible.
matches one or more, but as few as possible
matches zero or one, but as few as possible.
matches exactly m. In other words, it is identical to {m}.

Constraints  edit

A constraint specifies how an atom may match within a string.
matches the beginning of a string.
matches the end of the string. While it is common to think of this character matching the newline, it actually just matches the end of the string, not some character at the end, and one cannot manipulate the newline by, for instance, trying to replace the symbol by the empty string, etc.

Other Users of Tcl Regular Expressions  edit

BAS : just a tidbit, Postgresql uses Tcl's regexp engine for its own regexp handling; see PostgreSQL Weekly News - Feb 12th 2003.

Greediness  edit

There are three things that independently are configured to try to match either as much as possible or as little as possible: atoms, branches, and the expression as a whole. This characteristic is called greediness. A quantified atom has the greediness of its quantifier. A branch has the greediness of the first quantified atom in the branch. An expression containing multiple branches tries to match as much as possible.

That's all there is to greediness, but the interplay of these things gets a little more interesting. A greedy atom may be constrained by a non-greedy branch, causing it to appear non-greedy, but the greediness of an atom doesn't actually ever change.

?, + and * are greedy atom quantifers. Their non-greedy counterparts are +?, *?, and ??.

% regexp a.+3 abc123abc123 var
% set var

.+ matched all the characters up until the last 3. In contrast, +? matches as little as possible:
% regexp a.+?3 abc123abc123 var
% puts $var

Difficulty using greedy regexp crops up in the context of extracting substrings between tags, e.g. in HTML:
% set str {<b>Some Bold Text</b><br><i>Some Italic Text</i><br><b>More Bold Text</b>}
% regexp <b>.*</b> $str var
% set var
<b>Some Bold Text</b><br><i>Some Italic Text</i><br><b>More Bold Text</b>

.* matched as much as possible. It began matching tags at the first occurrence of <b> and didn't quit until the last occurrence of </b>. But, using a non-greedy regexp to match...
% set str {<b>Some Bold Text</b><br><i>Some Italic Text</i><br><b>More Bold Text</b>}
% regexp <b>.*?</b> $str var
% set var
<b>Some Bold Text</b>

Alternatively, use a non-greedy regular expression that matches the empty string to make the branch, and thus the whole expression in this single-branch case, non-greedy:
regexp -nocase -- {.??<b>.*</b>} $str var

In the example above the .* atom remains greedy, but it is constrained because it is in a non-greedy branch. This is not the same as the atom being non-greedy. In some cases there's an observable difference in a non-greedy branch between a greedy atom and its non-greedy counterpart. Take for example, this expresion:
regexp -nocase -- {.??text1(?:text2)?(.*)text3} $contents -- reason

The initial .?? matches an empty string and is there to cause the branch to be non-greedy. At the same time, (?:text2)? remains greedy, preferring to match text2 over the empty string, which it would match if it were somehow converted to a non-greedy quantifier.

Wielding Greediness  edit

One trick with non-greedy quantifies is to anchor the expression to the beginning/end of the string, which has the effect of stretching out the non-greedy match:
%regexp -inline (.*?)(n+)(.*) ennui
en e n {} 
%regexp -inline ^(.*?)(n+)(.*)$ ennui
ennui e nn ui

gotcha: Non-greedy Quanitifers Prioritize 'first' Over 'shortest'  edit

AvL: I'll now mention some common pitfall with non-greedy REs: Lets go back to the first example, but with a modified string:
% regexp a.+?3 abc123ax3 var
% set var

Although second possible match ax3 would be shorter, abc123 is selected because even with non-greedy quantifiers, the first match always wins.

gotcha: Interaction Between Quantifiers with Different Greediness  edit

All quantifiers in a branch get switched to the same greediness, so adding a non-greedy quantifier makes the other quantifiers in the branch implicitly non-greedy as well. In the following example, one might expect $last to contain the rest of the string, but it doesn't:
% regexp {([^\s]*?)(\s+)(.*)} {a large heart and a large head} full first delim last]}
{a } a { } {}

([^\s]*?) matched the first a, (\s+) matched the first whitespace character, and (.*) matched nothing. Why? In the final (.*), * inherited non-greediness from the earlier *?, so it matches zero occurrences of anything. I.e. it matches nothing. In the (\s+) atom, + also inherited non-greediness in the same way.

See Also

Henry Spencer's reply in tcl 8.2 regexp not doing non-greedy matching correctly, comp.lang.tcl, 1999-09-20.
Tcl Regular Expressions – Greedy or Non-greedy?, David Osborne, 2013-03-22
a case study in greediness, and how to select greedy or non-greedy for any expression.
Regexp: Matching pairs of characters, comp.lang.tcl, 2001-11-28

Expanded Syntax  edit

Henry Spencer writes
 >...You can't put extra spaces into regular
 >expressions to improve readability, you just have to suffer along
 >with the rest of us.

Actually, since 8.1 you can, although since it's one of 57 new features, it's easy to miss. Like so:
set re {(?x)
    \s+ ([[:graph:]]+)      # first number
    \s+ ([[:graph:]]+)      # second number
set data "     -1.2117632E+00     -5.6254282E-01"
regexp $re $data match matchX matchY

The initial (?x), which must be right at the start, puts the regexp parser into expanded mode, which ignores white space (with some specific exceptions) and #-to-end-of-line comments.

Compiling Regular Expressions  edit

The first time a variable is passed as a regular expression of regexp or regsub, it is compiled, and the compiled value is cached in the internal representation of the value. To compile a regular expression:
regexp $RE {}

Feature Request #312: Function to Compile a Pattern, 2003

DKF: I prefer to use
regexp -about $RE

to do the compilation, but that's probably a matter of style.

AMG: The only purpose I see for this is to detect syntax errors early rather than wait until the regular expression is used.

Comma Number Formatting  edit

Some folks insist on inserting commas (or other characters) to format digits into groups of three. Here is a regexp from Keith Vetter to do the trick (Thanks Keith!):

The Perl manual describes a very slick method of doing this:
1 while s/^([-+]?\d+)(\d{3})/$1,$2/;

Translated into (pre 8.1) tcl you get:
set n 123456789.00
while {[regsub {^([-+]?[0-9]+)([0-9][0-9][0-9])} $n {\1,\2} n]} {}
puts $n

results in

You can tighten this up a little using escape characters and quantifiers:
while {[regsub {^([-+]?\d+)(\d{3})} $n {\1,\2} n]} {}

Using the extended syntax, this becomes a bit easier to understand:
while {[regsub {(?x)
        ^([-+]?\d+)     # The number at the start of the string...
        (\d{3})         # ...has three digits at the end
} $n {\1,\2} n]} {
                                        # So we insert a comma there and repeat...

RS: For a version with configurable separator, see Bag of algorithms, item "Number commified"

Ro: See also Human readable file size formatting for a version without regular expressions for those of us who are allergic to monstrous complexity ;)

Exluding Patterns from a Match  edit

NEM: A question in the Tcl Chatroom brought up a common problem that I've had when dealing with regular expressions. [^AB] means "not A or B", but what if you want to match anything but the string AB? The only way to do it is to put lots of negated classes one after the other, which is ugly. So, here is a way to wrap that up into something a bit more elegant:
proc not {pattern} {
    set ret {(?:}     ;# Not capturing bracket
    foreach char [split $pattern {}] {
        append ret "\[^$char\]"
    append ret ")"
    return $ret

Then you can do:
regexp -- "AB([not AB]*)AB(.*)" ABcdefghABijklmnopqrst -> first rest
first = "cdefgh"
rest = "ijklmnopqrst"

And it handles things like:
regexp -- "AB([not AB]*)AB(.*)" ABcdefghBAijkABlmnopqrst -> first rest
#first -> cdefghBAijk
#rest -> lmnopqrst

But that this will only match patterns which are at least the same length as the negated expression:
regexp -- "AB([not AB]*)AB(.*)" ABcABslkdjf -> first rest ;#-> 0

The proper solution to this problem is a lot more complex, unfortunately.

The above three regexp's can be written using a lookahead constraint.
foreach str {ABcdefghABijklmnopqrst ABcdefghBAijkABlmnopqrst ABcABslkdjf} {
    set e "regexp -- {AB(?!AB)(.*)AB(.*)} $str -> first rest"
    puts "$e\n=> [eval $e]\nfirst = $first\nrest = $rest\n"

regexp -- {AB(?!AB)(.*)AB(.*)} ABcdefghABijklmnopqrst -> first rest
#-> 1
#first -> cdefgh
#rest -> ijklmnopqrst

egexp -- {AB(?!AB)(.*)AB(.*)} ABcdefghBAijkABlmnopqrst -> first rest
#-> 1
#first -> cdefghBAijk
#rest -> lmnopqrst

regexp -- {AB(?!AB)(.*)AB(.*)} ABcABslkdjf -> first rest
#-> 1
#first -> c
#rest -> slkdjf

Important to note on the [not pattern] example above is that it will NOT match strings where there is an occurrence of the first letter from pattern when not part of the entirety of pattern:
% regexp -- "AB([not AB]*)AB(.*)" ABcdefghAijklmABnopqrst -> first rest
% regexp -- "AB([not AB]*)AB(.*)" ABcdefghBijklmABnopqrst -> first rest
% set first
% set rest

DKF: It's actually fairly easy to request that an RE shouldn't match something. You just need some magic around it like this:
regexp {^(?:(?!AB).)*$} $string

That matches any string that doesn't contain AB as a subsequence.

Non-reporting sub-patterns  edit

I would love to see a some clarification on exactly how non-reporting subpatterns work with -inline, specifically if you can silence the overall pattern match:
% set str {

asd;flkj <img src="example.jpg" >
sad;lfjl;kjf<IMg src="browser/ie.gif">


% set _Img {<img src="?([\w\./]*)"?[^>]*>}
<img src="?([\w\./]*)"?[^>]*>
% regexp -all -nocase -inline $_Img $str
{<img src="example.jpg" >} example.jpg {<IMg src="browser/ie.gif">} browser/ie.gif

glennj: You can't silence the full match. You will have to iterate over the results of regexp:
set matches {} 
foreach {full submatch} [regexp -all -nocase -inline $_Img $str] {
    lappend matches $submatch

Matching Optional Parts  edit

elfring 2004-07-05: Does anybody know problems and solutions to match optional parts with regular expressions?

See Matching of optional parts in regular expressions, comp.lang.tcl, 2004-07-01.

MG 2004-07-17: The problem with the regexp there seems to be that one of the parts to match optional white space is in the wrong place, and is matching too much. If you use this regexp instead, it works for me, on Win XP with Tcl 8.4.6. (The change is that, after </S_URI> and before <P_URI>, .*? has been moved inside (?: ... )
set pattern {<name>(.+)</name>(?:.*?<scope>(SYSTEM|PUBLIC)</scope>.*?<S_URI>(.+)</S_URI>(?:.*?<P_URI>(.+)</P_URI>)?)?(?:.*?<definition>(.*?)</definition>)?(?:.*?<attributes>(.*?)</attributes>)?.*?<content>(.*)</content>\s*$}

set string {<name>gruss</name>
<definition><!ELEMENT gruss (#PCDATA)></definition>
<content><h1>Guten Tag!</h1></content>}

regexp $pattern $str z name scope system public definition attributes content

A Regular Expression to Match Many Things in Any Order  edit

DKF: Sometimes it is useful to be able to write a regular expression that matches a string that contains some number of substrings (typically words) in any order. In normal regexps, this is a horrible thing to write down as the size of the RE term varies exponentially with the number of substrings. However, if you don't mind matching behaviour that is guaranteed to be non-optimal in some strict sense, and if you don't want any capturing parens, you can use positive lookahead assertions to make things neater.

Thus, to match a string that contains foo, bar and spong within it in any order, use a RE like this:
set RE {(?=.*foo)(?=.*bar)(?=.*spong).}
set matched [regexp $RE $string]

Just note that if you use this, you cannot know where those strings matched; lookahead assertions don't support that. If you need that data, use multiple regexp matches instead

Looping Over Matches  edit

[MAH]: What yould be the correct way to loop over all matches of a regular expression in a string? I came up with the following solution

for finding all include statements in a string, but using -start has side effects on the meaning of characters like $ and ^.
set pos 0
while {[regexp -start $pos {`include "([\w/.]+)"} $data string vincfile]==1} {
    set pos [expr {$pos+[string length $string]}]
    puts "file=$vincfile"

Lars H: The option combination -all -inline is probably what you're looking for (although in general the problem of "finding all matches" runs into several technical issues, due to the fact that matches may overlap).

In combination with -start, one has to use \A and \Z instead of $ and ^, unless the intent is to use the newline-sensitive behaviours of the latter. -indices may also be useful.

[MAH]: Okay, -inline is too clumsy for me since I don't want the overall match string. Instead I'll go with -indices. This gives me
set pos 0
while {[regexp -start $pos -indices {`include "([\w/.]+)"} $data -> vincfilepos]==1} {
    set vincfile [ string range $data [ lindex $vincfilepos 0 ]  [ lindex $vincfilepos 1 ] ]
    set pos [ lindex $vincfilepos 1 ]
    puts "file=$vincfile"

I think that's rather clumsy for a task this common. Any ideas on how to make it simpler?

PYK 2014-09-12:
set data {
`include "one.h"
`include "two.h"

foreach {all indices} [
        regexp -all -inline -indices {`include "([\w/.]+)"} $data] {

        lassign $indices first last
        set vincfile [string range $data $first $last]
        puts "file=$vincfile"

HE 2016-01-28: With the given regular expression I would use:
set data {
`include "one.h"
`include "two.h"

foreach {-> vincfile} [regexp -all -inline -- {`include "([\w/.]+)"} $data] {
        puts "file=$vincfile"

History  edit

Tcl switched to Advanced Regular Expressions in version 8.1.

Misc  edit

The above discussion needs to cover the advanced regular expression syntax as handled by Tcl 8.1 and later and show the user what all the differences are, so that one can write portable code when necessary - or at least create appropriate package require statements.

KBK has astutely remarked that, "Much of the art of designing recognizers is the art of controlling such things in the common cases; regexp matching in general is PSPACE-complete, and our extended regexps are even worse (... not bounded by any tower of exponentials ...)." [2]

Lars H 2008-06-01: Somehow I doubt KBK would say that, in part because it's dead wrong as far as basic regular expressions are concerned — given a regular expression of size m and a string of size n it is always possible to test whether the string matches that regular expression in time that is linear in n and polynomial in m. Googling for "regexp matching PSPACE complete" turns up this page, but otherwise rather suggests that other problems concerning regular expressions, in particular deciding whether two regular expressions are equivalent, may be PSPACE-complete. (Which is actually kind of interesting, since the naive determinization algorithm for this might need exponential amounts of memory and thus not be in PSPACE at all, but off-topic.)

The link provided as source currently doesn't work (no surprise, it's into SourceForge mail archives), but the forum_id seems to refer to development of a Perl module (text::similarity, in some capitalization) rather than anything Tcl related. That matching using Perl's so-called "regexps" should be "worse than PSPACE-complete" is something I can believe, so in that context the quote makes sense, but why it should then be attributed to KBK, and moreover why it should appear in this Wiki (added 2006-08-09, in revision 35 of this page), is still a mystery.

LV: Searching http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Browse/Threaded/tcl-core (well, actually from what I can see, one can only search ALL of activestate's mailing list archives), doesn't turn up a reference like this. Maybe it is quite old - before activestate?

TV: Auw, man... That´s like suggesting something like the traveling salesman problem is only there to upset people that a certain repository will have the perfect solution for this type of problem, but like that the actual worlds´ best sorting algorithm (O(log(2.1...)) has gotten lost in a van with computer tapes from some university in 1984 or so, the whole of "datastructures and algorithms" will end up like the ´English IT Show´ on the Comedy Channel, and than on the Who says Tcl sucks... graveyard like the [connection machine] was great but forgotten and the world´s greatest synthesizer developers/researchers are in "The Dead Presidents Society" (CEO´s that is, like ´the dead Poets Society´).

Page Authors  edit