• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 250
  • Last Modified:

Stripping piece of text with RegEx

I would like to be able to remove a part of text using RegEx

Example:
"[BONJOUR]Everything here should be removed as well[/BONJOUR]This part should remain"
Woud become "This part should remain".

I've tried many things, but none work:
[BONJOUR].+[/BONJOUR]
\x5bBONJOUR\x5d.+\x5b/BONJOUR\x5d

Thanks for your help.
0
Christian de Bellefeuille
Asked:
Christian de Bellefeuille
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • +1
3 Solutions
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
Try using the non-greedy version of dot-star:  .*?

Also, you need to escape the brackets since they are special characters in regex land.

e.g.

\[BONJOUR\].+?\[/BONJOUR\]

Open in new window

0
 
peprCommented:
As kaufmed said. Anyway, regular expressions are not powerful enough for more general cases like this because there is no way to describe nested pair structures.
0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
@pepr

Actually, some regex libraries support balancing groups, which can be used to match nested structures--albeit in a more complicated fashion. I think the Boost regex engine does, but I'm not 100% on that.
0
Keep up with what's happening at Experts Exchange!

Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.

 
Christian de BellefeuilleProgrammerAuthor Commented:
@kaufmed:  It's close, but it still not it.  The result i get with your expression is:
[R]This part should remain
0
 
Derek JensenCommented:
@cdebel, have you tried escaping the slash?

\[BONJOUR\].+?\[\/BONJOUR\]

Open in new window

0
 
Christian de BellefeuilleProgrammerAuthor Commented:
@bigdogdman: Yes i've tried.  The only difference between your version and Kaufmed version is the \ right before the /BONJOUR.  But i get the same result.

But there is something different if i test your expression with this website.  It seems to work there.

But does it have anything to do with boost?  I'm using this library for RegEx.  I thought RegEx was a standard... no mather which language or library i use, i was expecting the same results.

Here's my test code:
void testBoostRegex()
{
    std::string wStr = "[BONJOUR]Everything here should be removed as well[/BONJOUR]This part should remain";
    boost::regex wExp("\[BONJOUR\].+?\[\/BONJOUR\]");
    cout << boost::regex_replace(wStr, wExp, "") << endl;
    return;
}

Open in new window

0
 
Christian de BellefeuilleProgrammerAuthor Commented:
@bigdogdman: My bad.  I've forgot to double the \.  With the following expression, it work:

    boost::regex wExp("\\[BONJOUR\\].+?\\[\\/BONJOUR\\]");

Thanks a lot!
0
 
peprCommented:
@cdebel: The problem is that you have to double backslashes in the C++ literals. It should be:
    boost::regex wExp("\\[BONJOUR\\].+?\\[/BONJOUR\\]");

Open in new window

This is one of the reasons why C++11 introduced raw string literals. Now you can write:
boost::regex wExp(R"(\[BONJOUR\].+?\[/BONJOUR\])");

Open in new window

Anyway, when you use C++11, the regex became the standard library.

As boost is actually a testbed for C++ standards, the C++11 regex is syntactically probably almost identical. (I have used it only the simple way, and it was identical.)

(The Microsoft Visual C++ 2013 is fairly good compiler these days, so I dare to point out to their documentation.)

For <regex> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb982382.aspx
and the regex_constants::syntax_option_type http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb982516.aspx -- you can set what syntax you want to use. Anyway, the more advanced syntax also causes regular expressions be more complex in the sense of computational complexity -- see http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html

The slash need not to be escaped.
0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
I'm not sure that bigdogdman's post should be the accepted answer here, since it's really just a copy of what I posted. If anything, pepr's last comment should be the answer since it goes into detail about the need for double-escaping of the backslash--something I mistakenly assumed would be understood given the target language of C++.
0
 
peprCommented:
@kaufmed: I was late :) Anyway, things are as they are, and it is OK.
0
 
Derek JensenCommented:
Sorry kaufmed, I didn't mean to steal any poins from you; my bad. :">
I'll try to remember to credit you (or anyone) from now on when I'm merely offering an adjustment to their suggestion.
0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
It's not so much the points as the correctness. The OP stated that my suggestion didn't work (which we now know was due to lack of escaping). You're suggestion assumes that the issue is with the forward slash, which it is not. The only languages that require a forward slash to be escaped are those which use pattern delimiters (e.g. PHP, Perl, Javascipt, etc.). So in a technical sense, your answer is a repeat of my answer.

I see now that the OP posted info regarding the double-backslash as well.
0
 
Christian de BellefeuilleProgrammerAuthor Commented:
I just want to point out that:
pepr reply happend after i've accepted the answer.  I would have gave him some points for the additionnal information that he have provided
bigdogdman didn't just "copy&paste" your version, but he have shown the exact version that work.  In kaufmed version, a \ was missing before the [\/BONJOUR].  I wouldn't feel correct for E-E readers if i accepted a "partially working" version just based on the fact that you answered first.
I've found the double backslash myself, you can see it with the timestamps.

I'll ask the moderator to split the point equally between the 3 of you, or reopen the question so i can accept the answer properly.

By the way, there will be a similar question in the next hour.  This question was "over simplified".  If i try to adapt to the real situation i'm facing, it still doesn't work
0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
Don't sweat it. I've said my peace, and you have your answer. Nobody lost a limb. It's a good day for everyone  ; )
0
 
Christian de BellefeuilleProgrammerAuthor Commented:
I just want that everyone feel ok with the answer.  I didn't know that it was different for PHP/Perl/Javascript.  When i've posted this question, i've written in the tags "boost" because this is the library that i use (boost::regex_replace to be precise).  And i've posted this in regular expression, and "C++ Languages".  

But ... i was testing it in myregextester web site, because i thought i've made a mistake with my usage of boost library.

I know how it feel when someone accept the wrong answer or when the OP didn't specified things.
0
 
Christian de BellefeuilleProgrammerAuthor Commented:
There's no way to ask a related question anymore, so here's the link for those who are interrested to give precisions:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Regular_Expressions/Q_28301459.html
0
 
peprCommented:
Well, thanks for the points. Anyway, you should know I am not doing it for the points. (It is a game.) I am learning and repeating via searching for the answer. That's it. :)

Have a nice time (all of you).
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

Join & Write a Comment

Featured Post

Get your problem seen by more experts

Be seen. Boost your question’s priority for more expert views and faster solutions

  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • +1
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now