Regular expression matching with string slice in Go
$begingroup$
I have a slice of strings, and within each string contains multiple key=value
formatted messages. I want to pull all the keys out of the strings so I can collect them to use as the header for a CSV file. I do not know all potential key
fields, so I have to use regular expression matching to find them.
Here is my code.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"regexp"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
// topMatches is the final array to be returned.
// midMatches contains no duplicates, but the data is `key=`.
// subMatches contains all initial matches.
// initialRegex matches for anthing that matches `key=`. this is because the matching patterns.
// cleanRegex massages `key=` to `key`
topMatches := string{}
midMatches := string{}
subMatches := string{}
initialRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,}=)`)
cleanRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,})`)
// the nested loop for matches is because FindAllString
// returns string
for _, i := range logs {
matches := initialRegex.FindAllString(i, -1)
for _, m := range matches {
subMatches = append(subMatches, m)
}
}
// remove duplicates.
seen := map[string]string{}
for _, x := range subMatches {
if _, ok := seen[x]; !ok {
midMatches = append(midMatches, x)
seen[x] = x
}
}
// this is where I remove the `=` character.
for _, y := range midMatches {
clean := cleanRegex.FindAllString(y, 1)
topMatches = append(topMatches, clean[0])
}
return topMatches
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
y = GetKeys(y)
fmt.Println(y)
}
I think my code is inefficient because I cannot determine how to properly optimise the initialRegex
regular expression to match just the key
in the key=value
format without matching the value as well.
Can my first regular expression, initialRegex
, be optimised so I do not have to do a second matching loop to remove the =
character?
Playground: http://play.golang.org/p/ONMf_cympM
parsing regex go
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a slice of strings, and within each string contains multiple key=value
formatted messages. I want to pull all the keys out of the strings so I can collect them to use as the header for a CSV file. I do not know all potential key
fields, so I have to use regular expression matching to find them.
Here is my code.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"regexp"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
// topMatches is the final array to be returned.
// midMatches contains no duplicates, but the data is `key=`.
// subMatches contains all initial matches.
// initialRegex matches for anthing that matches `key=`. this is because the matching patterns.
// cleanRegex massages `key=` to `key`
topMatches := string{}
midMatches := string{}
subMatches := string{}
initialRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,}=)`)
cleanRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,})`)
// the nested loop for matches is because FindAllString
// returns string
for _, i := range logs {
matches := initialRegex.FindAllString(i, -1)
for _, m := range matches {
subMatches = append(subMatches, m)
}
}
// remove duplicates.
seen := map[string]string{}
for _, x := range subMatches {
if _, ok := seen[x]; !ok {
midMatches = append(midMatches, x)
seen[x] = x
}
}
// this is where I remove the `=` character.
for _, y := range midMatches {
clean := cleanRegex.FindAllString(y, 1)
topMatches = append(topMatches, clean[0])
}
return topMatches
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
y = GetKeys(y)
fmt.Println(y)
}
I think my code is inefficient because I cannot determine how to properly optimise the initialRegex
regular expression to match just the key
in the key=value
format without matching the value as well.
Can my first regular expression, initialRegex
, be optimised so I do not have to do a second matching loop to remove the =
character?
Playground: http://play.golang.org/p/ONMf_cympM
parsing regex go
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
{1,}
is equivalent to+
, and if the Goregexp
package supports it, you can use positive look-ahead to detect but not capture the=
:[a-zA-Z]+(?==)
. IIRC, the second=
doesn't need to be escaped since it has no special meaning outside of this context. Finally, I doubt you need the capturing group around the whole expression.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 6 '16 at 20:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a slice of strings, and within each string contains multiple key=value
formatted messages. I want to pull all the keys out of the strings so I can collect them to use as the header for a CSV file. I do not know all potential key
fields, so I have to use regular expression matching to find them.
Here is my code.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"regexp"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
// topMatches is the final array to be returned.
// midMatches contains no duplicates, but the data is `key=`.
// subMatches contains all initial matches.
// initialRegex matches for anthing that matches `key=`. this is because the matching patterns.
// cleanRegex massages `key=` to `key`
topMatches := string{}
midMatches := string{}
subMatches := string{}
initialRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,}=)`)
cleanRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,})`)
// the nested loop for matches is because FindAllString
// returns string
for _, i := range logs {
matches := initialRegex.FindAllString(i, -1)
for _, m := range matches {
subMatches = append(subMatches, m)
}
}
// remove duplicates.
seen := map[string]string{}
for _, x := range subMatches {
if _, ok := seen[x]; !ok {
midMatches = append(midMatches, x)
seen[x] = x
}
}
// this is where I remove the `=` character.
for _, y := range midMatches {
clean := cleanRegex.FindAllString(y, 1)
topMatches = append(topMatches, clean[0])
}
return topMatches
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
y = GetKeys(y)
fmt.Println(y)
}
I think my code is inefficient because I cannot determine how to properly optimise the initialRegex
regular expression to match just the key
in the key=value
format without matching the value as well.
Can my first regular expression, initialRegex
, be optimised so I do not have to do a second matching loop to remove the =
character?
Playground: http://play.golang.org/p/ONMf_cympM
parsing regex go
$endgroup$
I have a slice of strings, and within each string contains multiple key=value
formatted messages. I want to pull all the keys out of the strings so I can collect them to use as the header for a CSV file. I do not know all potential key
fields, so I have to use regular expression matching to find them.
Here is my code.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"regexp"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
// topMatches is the final array to be returned.
// midMatches contains no duplicates, but the data is `key=`.
// subMatches contains all initial matches.
// initialRegex matches for anthing that matches `key=`. this is because the matching patterns.
// cleanRegex massages `key=` to `key`
topMatches := string{}
midMatches := string{}
subMatches := string{}
initialRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,}=)`)
cleanRegex := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]{1,})`)
// the nested loop for matches is because FindAllString
// returns string
for _, i := range logs {
matches := initialRegex.FindAllString(i, -1)
for _, m := range matches {
subMatches = append(subMatches, m)
}
}
// remove duplicates.
seen := map[string]string{}
for _, x := range subMatches {
if _, ok := seen[x]; !ok {
midMatches = append(midMatches, x)
seen[x] = x
}
}
// this is where I remove the `=` character.
for _, y := range midMatches {
clean := cleanRegex.FindAllString(y, 1)
topMatches = append(topMatches, clean[0])
}
return topMatches
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
y = GetKeys(y)
fmt.Println(y)
}
I think my code is inefficient because I cannot determine how to properly optimise the initialRegex
regular expression to match just the key
in the key=value
format without matching the value as well.
Can my first regular expression, initialRegex
, be optimised so I do not have to do a second matching loop to remove the =
character?
Playground: http://play.golang.org/p/ONMf_cympM
parsing regex go
parsing regex go
asked Mar 4 '16 at 19:33
mxplusbmxplusb
22929
22929
$begingroup$
{1,}
is equivalent to+
, and if the Goregexp
package supports it, you can use positive look-ahead to detect but not capture the=
:[a-zA-Z]+(?==)
. IIRC, the second=
doesn't need to be escaped since it has no special meaning outside of this context. Finally, I doubt you need the capturing group around the whole expression.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 6 '16 at 20:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
{1,}
is equivalent to+
, and if the Goregexp
package supports it, you can use positive look-ahead to detect but not capture the=
:[a-zA-Z]+(?==)
. IIRC, the second=
doesn't need to be escaped since it has no special meaning outside of this context. Finally, I doubt you need the capturing group around the whole expression.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 6 '16 at 20:51
$begingroup$
{1,}
is equivalent to +
, and if the Go regexp
package supports it, you can use positive look-ahead to detect but not capture the =
: [a-zA-Z]+(?==)
. IIRC, the second =
doesn't need to be escaped since it has no special meaning outside of this context. Finally, I doubt you need the capturing group around the whole expression.$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 6 '16 at 20:51
$begingroup$
{1,}
is equivalent to +
, and if the Go regexp
package supports it, you can use positive look-ahead to detect but not capture the =
: [a-zA-Z]+(?==)
. IIRC, the second =
doesn't need to be escaped since it has no special meaning outside of this context. Finally, I doubt you need the capturing group around the whole expression.$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 6 '16 at 20:51
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're not making good use of regular expressions. A single regex can do the job:
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
The parentheses (...)
are the capture the interesting part for you.
You can use result = pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(s)
to match a string against the regex pattern. The return value is a string
, where in each string
slice, the 1st element is the entire matched string, and the 2nd, 3rd, ... elements have the content of the capture groups. In this example we have one capture group (...)
, so the value of the key will be in item[1]
of each string
slice.
Instead of a map[string]string
map for seen
, a map[string]boolean
would be more efficient.
Putting it together:
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
var keys string
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
seen := make(map[string]bool)
for _, log := range(logs) {
result := pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(log, -1)
for _, item := range result {
key := item[1]
if _, ok := seen[key]; !ok {
keys = append(keys, key)
seen[key] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
If the input strings are not guaranteed to be in the right format matching the pattern, then you might want to add a guard statement inside the main for loop, for example:
if len(result) != 2 {
continue
}
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I was reading about submatches, but I wasn't entirely sure if that's what I wanted or not because I didn't understand that was for capture groups. That makes a lot of sense. What is more efficient about a boolean over the string?
$endgroup$
– mxplusb
Mar 4 '16 at 20:32
$begingroup$
@mynameismevin the storage of abool
is smaller than astring
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 6 '16 at 20:53
$begingroup$
The original code usedFindAllString
to find multiple matches per message, but yours usesFindStringSubmatch
which looks to return a single match.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 7 '16 at 21:36
$begingroup$
Amap[string]struct{}
is even more efficient and uses less memory thanmap[string]bool
.
$endgroup$
– OneOfOne
Mar 28 '16 at 8:38
$begingroup$
@OneOfOne really? how? and how would I change the lineseen[key] = true
to make that work?
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 28 '16 at 10:13
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I know this is an old question but it popped up in my feed so I figured I'd contribute.
Out of curiosity, why use a regular expression at all? You could achieve the same thing use standard strings package and keep things simple. Here's a Playground that outputs the same result as your Playground.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"strings"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
exists := make(map[string]bool)
keys := make(string, 0)
for _, log := range logs {
parts := strings.Split(log, "=")
if len(parts) >= 1 {
k := parts[0]
if !exists[k] {
keys = append(keys, k)
exists[k] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
fmt.Println(GetKeys(y))
}
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121924%2fregular-expression-matching-with-string-slice-in-go%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're not making good use of regular expressions. A single regex can do the job:
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
The parentheses (...)
are the capture the interesting part for you.
You can use result = pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(s)
to match a string against the regex pattern. The return value is a string
, where in each string
slice, the 1st element is the entire matched string, and the 2nd, 3rd, ... elements have the content of the capture groups. In this example we have one capture group (...)
, so the value of the key will be in item[1]
of each string
slice.
Instead of a map[string]string
map for seen
, a map[string]boolean
would be more efficient.
Putting it together:
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
var keys string
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
seen := make(map[string]bool)
for _, log := range(logs) {
result := pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(log, -1)
for _, item := range result {
key := item[1]
if _, ok := seen[key]; !ok {
keys = append(keys, key)
seen[key] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
If the input strings are not guaranteed to be in the right format matching the pattern, then you might want to add a guard statement inside the main for loop, for example:
if len(result) != 2 {
continue
}
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I was reading about submatches, but I wasn't entirely sure if that's what I wanted or not because I didn't understand that was for capture groups. That makes a lot of sense. What is more efficient about a boolean over the string?
$endgroup$
– mxplusb
Mar 4 '16 at 20:32
$begingroup$
@mynameismevin the storage of abool
is smaller than astring
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 6 '16 at 20:53
$begingroup$
The original code usedFindAllString
to find multiple matches per message, but yours usesFindStringSubmatch
which looks to return a single match.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 7 '16 at 21:36
$begingroup$
Amap[string]struct{}
is even more efficient and uses less memory thanmap[string]bool
.
$endgroup$
– OneOfOne
Mar 28 '16 at 8:38
$begingroup$
@OneOfOne really? how? and how would I change the lineseen[key] = true
to make that work?
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 28 '16 at 10:13
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
You're not making good use of regular expressions. A single regex can do the job:
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
The parentheses (...)
are the capture the interesting part for you.
You can use result = pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(s)
to match a string against the regex pattern. The return value is a string
, where in each string
slice, the 1st element is the entire matched string, and the 2nd, 3rd, ... elements have the content of the capture groups. In this example we have one capture group (...)
, so the value of the key will be in item[1]
of each string
slice.
Instead of a map[string]string
map for seen
, a map[string]boolean
would be more efficient.
Putting it together:
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
var keys string
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
seen := make(map[string]bool)
for _, log := range(logs) {
result := pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(log, -1)
for _, item := range result {
key := item[1]
if _, ok := seen[key]; !ok {
keys = append(keys, key)
seen[key] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
If the input strings are not guaranteed to be in the right format matching the pattern, then you might want to add a guard statement inside the main for loop, for example:
if len(result) != 2 {
continue
}
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I was reading about submatches, but I wasn't entirely sure if that's what I wanted or not because I didn't understand that was for capture groups. That makes a lot of sense. What is more efficient about a boolean over the string?
$endgroup$
– mxplusb
Mar 4 '16 at 20:32
$begingroup$
@mynameismevin the storage of abool
is smaller than astring
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 6 '16 at 20:53
$begingroup$
The original code usedFindAllString
to find multiple matches per message, but yours usesFindStringSubmatch
which looks to return a single match.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 7 '16 at 21:36
$begingroup$
Amap[string]struct{}
is even more efficient and uses less memory thanmap[string]bool
.
$endgroup$
– OneOfOne
Mar 28 '16 at 8:38
$begingroup$
@OneOfOne really? how? and how would I change the lineseen[key] = true
to make that work?
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 28 '16 at 10:13
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
You're not making good use of regular expressions. A single regex can do the job:
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
The parentheses (...)
are the capture the interesting part for you.
You can use result = pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(s)
to match a string against the regex pattern. The return value is a string
, where in each string
slice, the 1st element is the entire matched string, and the 2nd, 3rd, ... elements have the content of the capture groups. In this example we have one capture group (...)
, so the value of the key will be in item[1]
of each string
slice.
Instead of a map[string]string
map for seen
, a map[string]boolean
would be more efficient.
Putting it together:
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
var keys string
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
seen := make(map[string]bool)
for _, log := range(logs) {
result := pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(log, -1)
for _, item := range result {
key := item[1]
if _, ok := seen[key]; !ok {
keys = append(keys, key)
seen[key] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
If the input strings are not guaranteed to be in the right format matching the pattern, then you might want to add a guard statement inside the main for loop, for example:
if len(result) != 2 {
continue
}
$endgroup$
You're not making good use of regular expressions. A single regex can do the job:
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
The parentheses (...)
are the capture the interesting part for you.
You can use result = pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(s)
to match a string against the regex pattern. The return value is a string
, where in each string
slice, the 1st element is the entire matched string, and the 2nd, 3rd, ... elements have the content of the capture groups. In this example we have one capture group (...)
, so the value of the key will be in item[1]
of each string
slice.
Instead of a map[string]string
map for seen
, a map[string]boolean
would be more efficient.
Putting it together:
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
var keys string
pattern := regexp.MustCompile(`([a-zA-Z]+)=`)
seen := make(map[string]bool)
for _, log := range(logs) {
result := pattern.FindAllStringSubmatch(log, -1)
for _, item := range result {
key := item[1]
if _, ok := seen[key]; !ok {
keys = append(keys, key)
seen[key] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
If the input strings are not guaranteed to be in the right format matching the pattern, then you might want to add a guard statement inside the main for loop, for example:
if len(result) != 2 {
continue
}
edited Mar 28 '16 at 10:30
answered Mar 4 '16 at 20:25
janosjanos
97.4k12125350
97.4k12125350
$begingroup$
I was reading about submatches, but I wasn't entirely sure if that's what I wanted or not because I didn't understand that was for capture groups. That makes a lot of sense. What is more efficient about a boolean over the string?
$endgroup$
– mxplusb
Mar 4 '16 at 20:32
$begingroup$
@mynameismevin the storage of abool
is smaller than astring
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 6 '16 at 20:53
$begingroup$
The original code usedFindAllString
to find multiple matches per message, but yours usesFindStringSubmatch
which looks to return a single match.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 7 '16 at 21:36
$begingroup$
Amap[string]struct{}
is even more efficient and uses less memory thanmap[string]bool
.
$endgroup$
– OneOfOne
Mar 28 '16 at 8:38
$begingroup$
@OneOfOne really? how? and how would I change the lineseen[key] = true
to make that work?
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 28 '16 at 10:13
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I was reading about submatches, but I wasn't entirely sure if that's what I wanted or not because I didn't understand that was for capture groups. That makes a lot of sense. What is more efficient about a boolean over the string?
$endgroup$
– mxplusb
Mar 4 '16 at 20:32
$begingroup$
@mynameismevin the storage of abool
is smaller than astring
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 6 '16 at 20:53
$begingroup$
The original code usedFindAllString
to find multiple matches per message, but yours usesFindStringSubmatch
which looks to return a single match.
$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 7 '16 at 21:36
$begingroup$
Amap[string]struct{}
is even more efficient and uses less memory thanmap[string]bool
.
$endgroup$
– OneOfOne
Mar 28 '16 at 8:38
$begingroup$
@OneOfOne really? how? and how would I change the lineseen[key] = true
to make that work?
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 28 '16 at 10:13
$begingroup$
I was reading about submatches, but I wasn't entirely sure if that's what I wanted or not because I didn't understand that was for capture groups. That makes a lot of sense. What is more efficient about a boolean over the string?
$endgroup$
– mxplusb
Mar 4 '16 at 20:32
$begingroup$
I was reading about submatches, but I wasn't entirely sure if that's what I wanted or not because I didn't understand that was for capture groups. That makes a lot of sense. What is more efficient about a boolean over the string?
$endgroup$
– mxplusb
Mar 4 '16 at 20:32
$begingroup$
@mynameismevin the storage of a
bool
is smaller than a string
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 6 '16 at 20:53
$begingroup$
@mynameismevin the storage of a
bool
is smaller than a string
$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 6 '16 at 20:53
$begingroup$
The original code used
FindAllString
to find multiple matches per message, but yours uses FindStringSubmatch
which looks to return a single match.$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 7 '16 at 21:36
$begingroup$
The original code used
FindAllString
to find multiple matches per message, but yours uses FindStringSubmatch
which looks to return a single match.$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 7 '16 at 21:36
$begingroup$
A
map[string]struct{}
is even more efficient and uses less memory than map[string]bool
.$endgroup$
– OneOfOne
Mar 28 '16 at 8:38
$begingroup$
A
map[string]struct{}
is even more efficient and uses less memory than map[string]bool
.$endgroup$
– OneOfOne
Mar 28 '16 at 8:38
$begingroup$
@OneOfOne really? how? and how would I change the line
seen[key] = true
to make that work?$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 28 '16 at 10:13
$begingroup$
@OneOfOne really? how? and how would I change the line
seen[key] = true
to make that work?$endgroup$
– janos
Mar 28 '16 at 10:13
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I know this is an old question but it popped up in my feed so I figured I'd contribute.
Out of curiosity, why use a regular expression at all? You could achieve the same thing use standard strings package and keep things simple. Here's a Playground that outputs the same result as your Playground.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"strings"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
exists := make(map[string]bool)
keys := make(string, 0)
for _, log := range logs {
parts := strings.Split(log, "=")
if len(parts) >= 1 {
k := parts[0]
if !exists[k] {
keys = append(keys, k)
exists[k] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
fmt.Println(GetKeys(y))
}
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know this is an old question but it popped up in my feed so I figured I'd contribute.
Out of curiosity, why use a regular expression at all? You could achieve the same thing use standard strings package and keep things simple. Here's a Playground that outputs the same result as your Playground.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"strings"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
exists := make(map[string]bool)
keys := make(string, 0)
for _, log := range logs {
parts := strings.Split(log, "=")
if len(parts) >= 1 {
k := parts[0]
if !exists[k] {
keys = append(keys, k)
exists[k] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
fmt.Println(GetKeys(y))
}
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know this is an old question but it popped up in my feed so I figured I'd contribute.
Out of curiosity, why use a regular expression at all? You could achieve the same thing use standard strings package and keep things simple. Here's a Playground that outputs the same result as your Playground.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"strings"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
exists := make(map[string]bool)
keys := make(string, 0)
for _, log := range logs {
parts := strings.Split(log, "=")
if len(parts) >= 1 {
k := parts[0]
if !exists[k] {
keys = append(keys, k)
exists[k] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
fmt.Println(GetKeys(y))
}
$endgroup$
I know this is an old question but it popped up in my feed so I figured I'd contribute.
Out of curiosity, why use a regular expression at all? You could achieve the same thing use standard strings package and keep things simple. Here's a Playground that outputs the same result as your Playground.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"strings"
)
func GetKeys(logs string) string {
exists := make(map[string]bool)
keys := make(string, 0)
for _, log := range logs {
parts := strings.Split(log, "=")
if len(parts) >= 1 {
k := parts[0]
if !exists[k] {
keys = append(keys, k)
exists[k] = true
}
}
}
return keys
}
func main() {
y := string{"key=value", "msg=payload", "test=yay", "msg=payload"}
fmt.Println(GetKeys(y))
}
answered 25 mins ago
LansanaLansana
227211
227211
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121924%2fregular-expression-matching-with-string-slice-in-go%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
{1,}
is equivalent to+
, and if the Goregexp
package supports it, you can use positive look-ahead to detect but not capture the=
:[a-zA-Z]+(?==)
. IIRC, the second=
doesn't need to be escaped since it has no special meaning outside of this context. Finally, I doubt you need the capturing group around the whole expression.$endgroup$
– David Harkness
Mar 6 '16 at 20:51