Community
    • Login

    How to find numbers in multiline in Notepad++

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Help wanted · · · – – – · · ·
    21 Posts 5 Posters 10.4k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • gelle_marrisaG
      gelle_marrisa @PeterJones
      last edited by gelle_marrisa

      @peterjones
      thanks. it gives me pattern error.
      https://regex101.com/r/p5XPbT/1/

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • gelle_marrisaG
        gelle_marrisa @Neil Schipper
        last edited by

        @neil-schipper
        this didn’t worked even. can you share an example in regex tester

        Neil SchipperN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • gelle_marrisaG
          gelle_marrisa @PeterJones
          last edited by

          @peterjones
          suppose if there is only 1 format for abcd area(no slash), then is there possibility to get the solution? I can replace all the slashes in first place and then use the regex.
          1234567891
          abcd :
          111|22
          xyz :
          333
          product :
          blablabla 456
          code :
          01010
          serial :
          8888899999

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • Neil SchipperN
            Neil Schipper @gelle_marrisa
            last edited by

            @gelle_marrisa The regex I provided you is tested on the text quoted just above it. All it does is match either of the 6 character strings in the quote. I provided it on the assumption that you were trying to learn techniques to help solve your overall problem. It was not intended as a complete solution.

            If you want help with a complete solution, you will need to read, with care, with attention, with seriousness, my remarks about the importance of being able to determine the start and the end of records in your data.

            gelle_marrisaG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • gelle_marrisaG
              gelle_marrisa @Neil Schipper
              last edited by

              @neil-schipper
              lets forget the slash value, if there is only 111|22 in 2nd or 3rd line, can we get the desired result?

              \d{10}\R\d{3}/\d{2}\R\d{3} this shows pattern error,

              I am noob, \d{3}[/|]\d{2} not sure to use it as complete pattern or i have to merge it with any previous pattern that was mentioned above.

              Neil SchipperN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • Neil SchipperN
                Neil Schipper @gelle_marrisa
                last edited by

                @gelle_marrisa

                To convert this:

                12
                abcd :
                115/22
                xyz :
                333
                product :
                blablabla 4567
                code :
                01010
                serial :
                34
                
                56
                abcd :
                116|22
                xyz :
                333
                product :
                blablabla 45678
                code :
                01010
                serial :
                78
                
                90
                abcd :
                117|22
                xyz :
                333
                product :
                blablabla 456789
                code :
                01010
                serial :
                12
                
                

                into this:

                12|115|22|333|4567|01010|34
                56|116|22|333|45678|01010|78
                90|117|22|333|456789|01010|12
                

                You can use:

                F: (\d+)\D+(\d+)\D+(\d+)\D+(\d+)\D+(\d+)\D+(\d+)\D+(\d+)\D+
                R: $1|$2|$3|$4|$5|$6|$7\r\n
                Set cursor to the left of first number of first record
                Execute Replace All

                It will only work on your whole file if every record has exactly 7 numbers.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • guy038G
                  guy038
                  last edited by guy038

                  Hello, @neil-schipper, @gelle_marrisa, @peterjones and All,

                  An other solution which does not depend on the number of lines of a section would be :

                  • SEARCH \D+((^\r\n)+|\z)|\D+

                  • REPLACE ?1\r\n:|

                  • Tick the Wrap around option

                  • Click on the Replace All button

                  Of course, I assume that each section is separated by, at least, one pure empty line

                  So, from this INPUT text :

                  12
                  abcd :
                  115/22
                  xyz :
                  333
                  product :
                  blablabla 4567
                  code :
                  01010
                  serial :
                  34
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  56
                  abcd :
                  116|22
                  xyz :
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  90
                  abcd :
                  product :
                  blablabla 456789
                  code :
                  serial :
                  12
                  

                  You would obtain this expected text :

                  12|115|22|333|4567|01010|34
                  56|116|22
                  90|456789|12
                  

                  Note that if we try to factorize the search regex expression as below :

                  • SEARCH \D+(((^\r\n)+|\z)|)

                  • REPLACE ?2\r\n:|

                  This regex S/R does not work properly and gives this output :

                  12|115|22|333|4567|01010|34|56|116|22|90|456789|12
                  

                  So, why, in this new regex, the case \D+(^\r\n)+ never occurs ? For instance, after the number 34, ending the first section of my exemple ? Well, we have this range of chars : 34\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n56. So :

                  • First, the regex \D+ matches \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n but would need some backtraking process in order that the first alternative \D+(^\r\n)+ matches this same range

                  • As the whole regex contains other alternatives, the regex engine, before backtracking, tries a match attempt with the second alternative. However, the regex \D+\z cannot be applied to, at this position !

                  • Finally, the regex engine tries the last empty alternative \D+() which, of course, matches the range \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

                  This explains why the gap between two sections is never detected with this second version of the regex S/R

                  Best Regards,

                  guy038

                  Neil SchipperN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • guy038G
                    guy038
                    last edited by guy038

                    Hello, @neil-schipper, @gelle_marrisa, @peterjones and All,

                    My reasoning, at the end of my previous post, about the second form of regex \D+(((^\r\n)+|\z)|) is not exact ! Indeed, I said :

                    As the whole regex contains other alternatives, the regex engine, before backtracking, tries a match attempt with the second alternative

                    But, in this case, the correct search regex of my previous post \D+((^\r\n)+|\z)|\D+, which also contains an alternation, should show the same behavior and always choose the second alternative \D+ ?!

                    I’ve tried to find out an explanation, without any success :-( May be, one of yours will be able to find out a plausible one !


                    In brief, even simplifying the first version by omitting the \z case , and given this INPUT text, with a blank line after the last 12 number

                    12
                    abcd :
                    115/22
                    xyz :
                    333
                    product :
                    blablabla 4567
                    code :
                    01010
                    serial :
                    34
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    56
                    abcd :
                    116|22
                    xyz :
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    90
                    abcd :
                    product :
                    blablabla 456789
                    code :
                    serial :
                    12
                    
                    

                    Why the regex S/R :

                    • SEARCH \D+(^\r\n)+|\D+

                    • REPLACE ?1\r\n:|

                    gives :

                    12|115|22|333|4567|01010|34
                    56|116|22
                    90|456789|12|
                    

                    And this second equivalent S/R :

                    • SEARCH \D+((^\r\n)+|)

                    • REPLACE ?2\r\n:|

                    gives this result :

                    12|115|22|333|4567|01010|34|56|116|22|90|456789|12|
                    

                    ???

                    BR

                    guy038

                    P.S. :

                    The problem does not comes from the empty alternative. For instance, the regex abc(def|) does find, either, the strings abcdef and just abc !

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • Neil SchipperN
                      Neil Schipper @guy038
                      last edited by

                      @guy038 said in How to find numbers in multiline in Notepad++:

                      solution which does not depend on the number of lines of a section

                      Very nice solution. I can see its applicability and am glad to know it so thanks for sharing.

                      I won’t be much help on the follow-up discussion. I’m not even clear on what motivated you to go in this direction:

                      if we try to factorize the search regex expression

                      However, in trying to understand one building block of your newer regex, which includes a null in an OR subexpression, I encountered something confusing. I wanted to know “does a captured null return true or false?”

                      So I ran ‘Replace All’ with F=(), R=?1dog:cat on a few cases.

                      In the case of a new empty file, there are 0 matches. This seems wrong, although I wouldn’t be surprised if a more experienced regex person would say it’s correct and expected (because maybe in the docs it says “no text ==> no matches” or maybe, “a zero-length null only occurs before or after a character”).

                      In the case of a file with the single character ‘p’ there are 2 matches and we get dogpdog which seems reasonable.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • guy038G
                        guy038
                        last edited by guy038

                        Hello, @Neil-Schipper and All,

                        I had never done this test :

                        SEARCH ()

                        REPLACE (?1dog:cat)

                        Interesting ! You said :

                        In the case of a new empty file, there are 0 matches. This seems wrong,…

                        Well, your assertion is a bit philosophical : does an empty file contains a single empty string ( or an infinity ! ) ?

                        Note that , in regex mode, the search of () ( an empty group 1 ) does show the ^ zero length match calltip, when applied to a new empty tab or a zero byte file !

                        However, as you said, even a simple replacement with a dummy string, as for instance Test, does not occur and no text is inserted !

                        Now, if I type in the phrase This is a test in a new tab and I use the regex S/R :

                        SEARCH ()

                        REPLACE ?1:|:x

                        I get, after clicking on the Replace All button, with the Wrap around option ticked, the text :

                        |T|h|i|s| |i|s| |a| |t|e|s|t|
                        

                        And, to my mind, all this is quite logic :

                        • The group 1 is defined and contains an empty string

                        • Technically, an empty string does exist between two characters, as well as before the first char and after the last. So each occurrence is changed into the | char

                        Note that we can obtain the same result with this other regex S/R :

                        SEARCH (.{0})

                        REPLACE ?1:|:x

                        and also with the more simple forms :

                        SEARCH ()

                        REPLACE |

                        or

                        SEARCH .{0}

                        REPLACE |


                        As we’re speaking about empty groups, I would like to mention a particular but important point when using conditional structures, in regex mode :

                        Let’s consider this list :

                        Ted=First Name
                        25=Age
                        Mary=First Name
                        75=Age
                        Elisabeth=First Name
                        47=Age
                        Bob=First Name
                        62=Age
                        

                        Let’s introduce the conditional regex structure (?(1)Age|First Name) which means : if a group 1 has been previously defined, in the search regex, searches for the string Age else searches for the string First Name

                        If we build the regex (?-si)^(\d*).*=(?(1)Age|First Name)$, you could say :

                        • If a line begins with a number, the part \d* matches this number, the part .* matches an empty string = matches the equal sign and the conditional bloc (?(1)Age|First Name) matches the string Age as the group 1 contains the number and is defined

                        • If a line does not begin with a number, the part \d* matches an empty string, the part .* matches the first name, = matches the equal sign and the conditional bloc (?(1)Age|First Name) matches the string First Name as the group 1 is not defined and empty

                        However, running this regex, against our text, it matches only the lines relative to the age and not all the lines. Why ?

                        Well, what really represents the (\d*) group, after the ^ assertion :

                        • If a line begins with some digits, no problem : group 1 is defined and contains the number

                        • Now, if a line does not begin with digits, the group 1 is ALSO defined but contains an empty string

                        Thus, in all cases the group 1 is defined;, breaking the normal behaviour of the conditional part (?(1)Age|First Name)

                        To get a functional overall regex, you need to change this non-optional group 1 (\d*) into an optional group, with a non-optional contents…, thanks to the syntax (\d+)?. Then, the search regex becomes :

                        (?-si)^(\d+)?.*=(?(1)Age|First Name)$

                        This time :

                        • If a line begins with a number, the optional part (\d+)? matches this number and the group 1 is clearly defined and contains this number

                        • But, if a line does not begin with a number the optional part (\d+)? matches nothing and the group 1 is not defined at all !

                        You can verify that this final regex find, as expected, all the lines of our text !

                        Remark : Of course, we could had simply used the regex (?-si)^(\d+=Age|.+=First Name)$, without any conditional block !


                        This reasoning can be applied, as well, to conditional replacements ! For instance, given this text :

                        Ted
                        25
                        Mary
                        75
                        Elisabeth
                        47
                        Bob
                        62
                        

                        The following regex S/R :

                        SEARCH (?-s)^(\d+)?.*$

                        REPLACE (?1Age:First Name) : $&

                        would gives :

                        First Name : Ted
                        Age : 25
                        First Name : Mary
                        Age : 75
                        First Name : Elisabeth
                        Age : 47
                        First Name : Bob
                        Age : 62
                        
                        • If a number begins a line, group 1 is defined and the string Age, followed with \x20:\x20, is inserted right before the number

                        • If a number does not begin a line, the group 1 is not defined at all. So the string First Name, followed with \x20:\x20, is inserted, this time, right before the first name

                        And you’ll verify, that the similar version, with the non-optional group 1 (\d*) :

                        SEARCH (?-s)^(\d*).*$

                        REPLACE (?1Age:First Name) : $&

                        gives wrong results, with the string "Age : " ALWAYS inserted :-((

                        Best Regards,

                        guy038

                        Neil SchipperN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • Neil SchipperN
                          Neil Schipper @guy038
                          last edited by

                          Good write up, @guy038. It’s good to know there’s a way to have a group conditionally defined as you showed.

                          To get a functional overall regex, you need to change this non-optional group 1 (\d*) into an optional group, with a non-optional contents…, thanks to the syntax (\d+)?

                          At first it seemed like this property of (spec+)? was an anomaly being exploited, or maybe an afterthought by the regex authors, but upon reflection there is some sense to it:

                          In cases where (spec) has no match…

                          • with (spec*) the (little man in the) machine says, "you asked for a capture group containing zero or more matches, so I’m giving you a capture group that contains null text; and a thing which contains surely must be defined.

                          • with (spec+)? the (little man in the) machine says, "you asked for zero or one capture groups containing matched text, so I give you zero such groups, and a thing of which there are zero (in compsci) has no memory allocated and no address, ie, is undefined

                          After realizing this, I wondered if some sticky situations might arise using this technique when there’s a sequence of these conditionally defined groups (ConDefGrps for short). Consider an expression in which all capture groups (CaptGrps) are also ConDefGrps, and, say the first ConDefGrp doesn’t match, so a CaptGrp isn’t defined, but, the second one does; since this latter one is the first CaptGrp that “comes to life”, wouldn’t its reference be 1 so that any conditional test on it (no matter if later in the same expression or in the substitution statement) would actually be testing for the existence of that second appearing, first defined CaptGrp?

                          So I set up a test to check this.

                          Consider a scheme in which a valid code consists of zero or more number 1’s, then 2’s, then 3’s, in that order, with at least one element present.

                          An expression that only matches lines completely filled by a valid code is: ^(?=\S)([1]+)?([2]+)?([3]+)?$ but that’s not so interesting.

                          Here’s an F/R pair that always captures the whole line whether it contains valid codes or not, and then writes it back with information about each group’s existence appended:

                          F: ^([1]+)?([2]+)?([3]+)?.*$
                          R: $0 - groups (?{1}1:.)(?{2}2:.)(?{3}3:.)

                          When applied to this test data:

                          1
                          2
                          3
                          
                          112
                          1222222223
                          2233111111
                          4
                          4123
                          12z3
                          1111111222223333
                          31
                          32
                          1133
                          

                          we obtain:

                          1 - groups 1..
                          2 - groups .2.
                          3 - groups ..3
                           - groups ...
                          112 - groups 12.
                          1222222223 - groups 123
                          2233111111 - groups .23
                          4 - groups ...
                          4123 - groups ...
                          12z3 - groups 12.
                          1111111222223333 - groups 123
                          31 - groups ..3
                          32 - groups ..3
                          1133 - groups 1.3
                          

                          What the above demonstrates is that when a ConDefGrp is encountered in an expression, even though it may remain “undefined” (and return False in an existence test) it still consumes a group number allocated in the normal fashion.

                          Thus, one need not worry that including multiple ConDefGrps might lead to ambiguity in the mapping of group to group number.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                          • guy038G
                            guy038
                            last edited by guy038

                            Hi, @neil-schipper and All,

                            To summarize :

                            • With the syntax ^(1+)?•••••, group 1 must contain some 1'. So, if no 1' can be found in text, the group 1 cannot be defined and is not used as optional
                              (? quantifier )

                            • With the syntax ^(1*)•••••, group 1 may or not contain some 1'. So, if no 1' can be found in text, the group 1 is still defined with empty contents
                              (* quantifier )

                            • With the syntax ^(1)*•••••, group 1 must contain one 1'. So, if no 1' can be found in text, the group 1 cannot be defined and is not used as optional
                              (* quantifier )


                            So, given the text :

                            000000 |
                            111111 |
                            222222 |
                            333333 |
                            111222 |
                            111133 |
                            223333 |
                            112233 |
                            

                            The regex S/R :

                            SEARCH (?-s)^(1+)?(2+)?(3+)?.+

                            REPLACE $0 groups (?{1}1:.)(?{2}2:.)(?{3}3:.)

                            gives :

                            000000 | groups ...
                            111111 | groups 1..
                            222222 | groups .2.
                            333333 | groups ..3
                            111222 | groups 12.
                            111133 | groups 1.3
                            223333 | groups .23
                            112233 | groups 123
                            

                            The regex S/R :

                            SEARCH (?-s)^(1*)(2*)(3*).+

                            REPLACE $0 groups (?{1}1:.)(?{2}2:.)(?{3}3:.)

                            gives :

                            000000 | groups 123
                            111111 | groups 123
                            222222 | groups 123
                            333333 | groups 123
                            111222 | groups 123
                            111133 | groups 123
                            223333 | groups 123
                            112233 | groups 123
                            

                            And the regex S/R :

                            SEARCH (?-s)^(1)*(2)*(3)*.+

                            REPLACE $0 groups (?{1}1:.)(?{2}2:.)(?{3}3:.)

                            gives :

                            000000 | groups ...
                            111111 | groups 1..
                            222222 | groups .2.
                            333333 | groups ..3
                            111222 | groups 12.
                            111133 | groups 1.3
                            223333 | groups .23
                            112233 | groups 123
                            

                            BR

                            guy038

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • Alan KilbornA
                              Alan Kilborn
                              last edited by

                              So this is a good discussion thread, but the choice to use literal 1, 2, 3 in the examples IMO wasn’t the best for the utmost clarity. :-)

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              The Community of users of the Notepad++ text editor.
                              Powered by NodeBB | Contributors