I have a basic text template engine that uses a syntax like this:
foo bar
%IF MY_VAR
some text
%IF OTHER_VAR
some other text
%ENDIF
%ENDIF
bar foo
I have an issue with the regular expression that I am using to parse it whereby it is not taking into account the nested IF/ENDIF blocks.
The current regex I'm using is: %IF (?<Name>[\w_]+)(?<Contents>.*?)%ENDIF
I have been 开发者_开发技巧reading up on balancing capture groups (a feature of .NET's regex library) as I understand this is the recommended way of supporting "recursive" regex's in .NET.
I've been playing with balancing groups and have so far came up with the following:
(
(
(?'Open'%IF\s(?<Name>[\w_]+))
(?<Contents>.*?)
)+
(
(?'Close-Open'%ENDIF)(?<Remainder>.*?)
)+
)*
(?(Open)(?!))
But this is not behaving entirely how I would expect. It is for instance capturing a lot of empty groups. Help?
To capture a whole IF/ENDIF block with balanced IF statements, you can use this regex:
%IF\s+(?<Name>\w+)
(?<Contents>
(?> #Possessive group, so . will not match IF/ENDIF
\s|
(?<IF>%IF)| #for IF, push
(?<-IF>%ENDIF)| #for ENDIF, pop
. # or, anything else, but don't allow
)+
(?(IF)(?!)) #fail on extra open IFs
) #/Contents
%ENDIF
The point here is this: you cannot capture in a single Match
more than one of every named group. You will only get one (?<Name>\w+)
group, for example, of the last captured value. In my regex, I kept the Name
and Contents
groups of your simple regex, and limited the balancing inside the Contents
group - the regex is still wrapped in IF
and ENDIF
.
If becomes interesting when your data is more complex. For example:
%IF MY_VAR
some text
%IF OTHER_VAR
some other text
%ENDIF
%IF OTHER_VAR2
some other text 2
%ENDIF
%ENDIF
%IF OTHER_VAR3
some other text 3
%ENDIF
Here, you will get two matches, one for MY_VAR
, and one for OTHER_VAR3
. If you want to capture the two ifs on MY_VAR
's content, you have to rerun the regex on its Contents
group (you can get around it by using a lookahead if you must - wrap the whole regex in (?=...)
, but you'll need to put it into a logical structure somehow, using positions and lengths).
Now, I won't explain too much, because it seems you get the basics, but a short note about the contents group - I've uses a possessive group to avoid backtracking. Otherwise, it would be possible for the dot to eventually match whole IF
s and break the balance. A lazy match on the group would behave similarly (( )+?
instead of (?> )+
).
精彩评论