j.u.regex: Negated Character Classes (original) (raw)

Xueming Shen xueming.shen at oracle.com
Fri Jun 3 21:55:28 UTC 2011

I'm sure everybody understands what "negated character classes" [^...] in j.u.regex means. You would never have doubt about

[^c] does NOT match "c" [^0-9] does NOT match "8" [^a-z] does NOT match "b" [^a-bc-d] does NOT match 'c"

But how about

does [^[c]] match "c"? does [^[0-9]] match "8"? does [^[a-z]] match "b"? does [^a-b[c-d]] match "c"?

I was wrong on all of them when was asked first time and it took me a while to figure out what is going on behind it. Oh, btw, the answer is "yes" for all 4, yes, the

[^[c]] matches "c" [^[0-9]] matches "8" [^[a-z]] matches "b". [^a-b[c-d]] matches "c" (while [^a-bc-d] does NOT match "c")

Another interesting sample is

[^a-b[c-d]e-f] matches "c" but does NOT match "e" (so the "e-f" part after the nested character class [c-d] does back to "normal").

It appears the "negation" of the "outer" character class does not affect its nested character class, so [^X] is always opposite from [^[X]], "X" to be any character class.

Same "strange" thing seems to be true for "intersection operation &&" as well, so both [a-d&&c-f] and [^a-d&&c-f] do NOT match "a".

This does not sound correct, at least for me.

The source code suggests that we are treating the nested/embedded [...] character class and the "intersection &&" specially, so

[^[X] is interpreted as [^] union [X] [^X[Y]] is interpreted as [^X] union [Y] [^X[Y]Z] is interpreted as [^XZ] union [Y] [^X&&Y] is interpreted as [^X] && Y

What I meant "treating...specially" is that we do NOT do the same thing for other "embedded character classes", so while [^[a-z]] does match "c", [^\p{Lower}] actually does NOT match "c", which I would expect.

The j.u.regex.Pattern APIs do NOT help. All the samples given for "Character classes"[1] section are "simple" negation, no "nested" sample is given. And neither "^" nor "[^...]" appear in the operator precedence table. The behaviors in other regex engines, such as Perl and POSIX, don't help, as "nested" character class is not supported there.

I did check with the original author who wrote this part of the code. It appears the current implementation is indeed what he intended to do back then, so this behavior is NOT an implementation bug but by design.

Personally I don't feel this design is not correct. Ideally, I would assume the spec either specifies [^...] as a separate "group operator" to be the "complement" of [...], or "^" as the "negation operator" with the lowest precedence, such as (from lowest to highest)

(1) Negation ^ (only at the beginning of the [...]) (2) Intersection && (3) Range - (4) nested class []

So [^X[Y]] would be the "complement" of [X[Y]]

[^X[Y]Z] would be the "complement" of [X[Y]Z]

[^X&&Y] would be the "complement" of [X&&Y]

for example, if I dump the regex internal logic node tree for the sample regex [^a-b[c-d]e-f], the jdk7 and jdk8 results would look like

/home/sherman/TL/regex$ /export/sherman/Workspace/jdk7/jdk/build/linux-i586/bin/java RegEx -flag "1000" "[^a-b[c-d]e-f]" "c" Pattern=<[^a-b[c-d]e-f]> Input = 1: (7) 2: (0) 3: (0) 4: <Range [a-b]> (0) 5: <Range [c-d]> (0) 6: <Range [e-f]> (0) 7: (0) ------------------------------- match:true groupCount=0

/home/sherman/TL/regex$ /export/sherman/Workspace/jdk8/jdk/build/linux-i586/bin/java RegEx -flag "1000" "[^a-b[c-d]e-f]" "c" Pattern=<[^a-b[c-d]e-f]> Input = 1: (7) 2: (0) 3: (0) 4: <Range [a-b]> (0) 5: <Range [c-d]> (0) 6: <Range [e-f]> (0) 7: (0) ------------------------------- match:false

I know, most of people might not be interested, but if you have read this far, means you are interested:-) and might have some opinions. It is definitely an incompatible change, given this has been the behavior from the very beginning of Java regex and has been there for almost a decade, I would appreciate any comment/opinion, especially if you agree that the existing behavior is NOT "correct" and therefor we need to fix, OR you think the existing one is just fine (the fact I only heard one complain the past 5 -6 years:-) so far), OR even the existing behavior is not "ideal", but given the compatibility concern, we might just leave it alone.

The fix/change itself is relatively easy, as showed at

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/pattern_cc/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esherman/pattern_cc/>

Thanks -Sherman

[1] http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/api/java/util/regex/Pattern.html#cc

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list