forked from Mirrors/freeswitch
158 lines
7.0 KiB
Groff
158 lines
7.0 KiB
Groff
|
.TH PCREMATCHING 3
|
||
|
.SH NAME
|
||
|
PCRE - Perl-compatible regular expressions
|
||
|
.SH "PCRE MATCHING ALGORITHMS"
|
||
|
.rs
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
This document describes the two different algorithms that are available in PCRE
|
||
|
for matching a compiled regular expression against a given subject string. The
|
||
|
"standard" algorithm is the one provided by the \fBpcre_exec()\fP function.
|
||
|
This works in the same was as Perl's matching function, and provides a
|
||
|
Perl-compatible matching operation.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
An alternative algorithm is provided by the \fBpcre_dfa_exec()\fP function;
|
||
|
this operates in a different way, and is not Perl-compatible. It has advantages
|
||
|
and disadvantages compared with the standard algorithm, and these are described
|
||
|
below.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
When there is only one possible way in which a given subject string can match a
|
||
|
pattern, the two algorithms give the same answer. A difference arises, however,
|
||
|
when there are multiple possibilities. For example, if the pattern
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
^<.*>
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
is matched against the string
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
<something> <something else> <something further>
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
there are three possible answers. The standard algorithm finds only one of
|
||
|
them, whereas the DFA algorithm finds all three.
|
||
|
.
|
||
|
.SH "REGULAR EXPRESSIONS AS TREES"
|
||
|
.rs
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
The set of strings that are matched by a regular expression can be represented
|
||
|
as a tree structure. An unlimited repetition in the pattern makes the tree of
|
||
|
infinite size, but it is still a tree. Matching the pattern to a given subject
|
||
|
string (from a given starting point) can be thought of as a search of the tree.
|
||
|
There are two ways to search a tree: depth-first and breadth-first, and these
|
||
|
correspond to the two matching algorithms provided by PCRE.
|
||
|
.
|
||
|
.SH "THE STANDARD MATCHING ALGORITHM"
|
||
|
.rs
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
In the terminology of Jeffrey Friedl's book \fIMastering Regular
|
||
|
Expressions\fP, the standard algorithm is an "NFA algorithm". It conducts a
|
||
|
depth-first search of the pattern tree. That is, it proceeds along a single
|
||
|
path through the tree, checking that the subject matches what is required. When
|
||
|
there is a mismatch, the algorithm tries any alternatives at the current point,
|
||
|
and if they all fail, it backs up to the previous branch point in the tree, and
|
||
|
tries the next alternative branch at that level. This often involves backing up
|
||
|
(moving to the left) in the subject string as well. The order in which
|
||
|
repetition branches are tried is controlled by the greedy or ungreedy nature of
|
||
|
the quantifier.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
If a leaf node is reached, a matching string has been found, and at that point
|
||
|
the algorithm stops. Thus, if there is more than one possible match, this
|
||
|
algorithm returns the first one that it finds. Whether this is the shortest,
|
||
|
the longest, or some intermediate length depends on the way the greedy and
|
||
|
ungreedy repetition quantifiers are specified in the pattern.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
Because it ends up with a single path through the tree, it is relatively
|
||
|
straightforward for this algorithm to keep track of the substrings that are
|
||
|
matched by portions of the pattern in parentheses. This provides support for
|
||
|
capturing parentheses and back references.
|
||
|
.
|
||
|
.SH "THE DFA MATCHING ALGORITHM"
|
||
|
.rs
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
DFA stands for "deterministic finite automaton", but you do not need to
|
||
|
understand the origins of that name. This algorithm conducts a breadth-first
|
||
|
search of the tree. Starting from the first matching point in the subject, it
|
||
|
scans the subject string from left to right, once, character by character, and
|
||
|
as it does this, it remembers all the paths through the tree that represent
|
||
|
valid matches.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
The scan continues until either the end of the subject is reached, or there are
|
||
|
no more unterminated paths. At this point, terminated paths represent the
|
||
|
different matching possibilities (if there are none, the match has failed).
|
||
|
Thus, if there is more than one possible match, this algorithm finds all of
|
||
|
them, and in particular, it finds the longest. In PCRE, there is an option to
|
||
|
stop the algorithm after the first match (which is necessarily the shortest)
|
||
|
has been found.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
Note that all the matches that are found start at the same point in the
|
||
|
subject. If the pattern
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
cat(er(pillar)?)
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
is matched against the string "the caterpillar catchment", the result will be
|
||
|
the three strings "cat", "cater", and "caterpillar" that start at the fourth
|
||
|
character of the subject. The algorithm does not automatically move on to find
|
||
|
matches that start at later positions.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
There are a number of features of PCRE regular expressions that are not
|
||
|
supported by the DFA matching algorithm. They are as follows:
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
1. Because the algorithm finds all possible matches, the greedy or ungreedy
|
||
|
nature of repetition quantifiers is not relevant. Greedy and ungreedy
|
||
|
quantifiers are treated in exactly the same way.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
2. When dealing with multiple paths through the tree simultaneously, it is not
|
||
|
straightforward to keep track of captured substrings for the different matching
|
||
|
possibilities, and PCRE's implementation of this algorithm does not attempt to
|
||
|
do this. This means that no captured substrings are available.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
3. Because no substrings are captured, back references within the pattern are
|
||
|
not supported, and cause errors if encountered.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
4. For the same reason, conditional expressions that use a backreference as the
|
||
|
condition are not supported.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
5. Callouts are supported, but the value of the \fIcapture_top\fP field is
|
||
|
always 1, and the value of the \fIcapture_last\fP field is always -1.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
6.
|
||
|
The \eC escape sequence, which (in the standard algorithm) matches a single
|
||
|
byte, even in UTF-8 mode, is not supported because the DFA algorithm moves
|
||
|
through the subject string one character at a time, for all active paths
|
||
|
through the tree.
|
||
|
.
|
||
|
.SH "ADVANTAGES OF THE DFA ALGORITHM"
|
||
|
.rs
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
Using the DFA matching algorithm provides the following advantages:
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
1. All possible matches (at a single point in the subject) are automatically
|
||
|
found, and in particular, the longest match is found. To find more than one
|
||
|
match using the standard algorithm, you have to do kludgy things with
|
||
|
callouts.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
2. There is much better support for partial matching. The restrictions on the
|
||
|
content of the pattern that apply when using the standard algorithm for partial
|
||
|
matching do not apply to the DFA algorithm. For non-anchored patterns, the
|
||
|
starting position of a partial match is available.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
3. Because the DFA algorithm scans the subject string just once, and never
|
||
|
needs to backtrack, it is possible to pass very long subject strings to the
|
||
|
matching function in several pieces, checking for partial matching each time.
|
||
|
.
|
||
|
.SH "DISADVANTAGES OF THE DFA ALGORITHM"
|
||
|
.rs
|
||
|
.sp
|
||
|
The DFA algorithm suffers from a number of disadvantages:
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
1. It is substantially slower than the standard algorithm. This is partly
|
||
|
because it has to search for all possible matches, but is also because it is
|
||
|
less susceptible to optimization.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
2. Capturing parentheses and back references are not supported.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
3. The "atomic group" feature of PCRE regular expressions is supported, but
|
||
|
does not provide the advantage that it does for the standard algorithm.
|
||
|
.P
|
||
|
.in 0
|
||
|
Last updated: 06 June 2006
|
||
|
.br
|
||
|
Copyright (c) 1997-2006 University of Cambridge.
|