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 @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