问题
I using regex search to replace the following string:
\new{}\new{\textbf{test1}}\new{test2}
with
\textbf{test1}test2
I used regex replace with \new{(.*)} to find and \1 to replace.
however the search always match the whole line of my original string and the replace reuslt is:
}\new{\textbf{test1}}\new{test2
far from what I need.
In regex expression in Java, you can use a ? after a quantifier makes it a reluctant quantifier. It then tries to find the smallest match. So in java, my search regex expression would be
\\new\{(.*?)\}
I need the corresponding regex search string in TeXStudio to do the smallest match. Anyway to still work through for this case even if TexStudio does not support non-greed match?
回答1:
Do you know how deep the nesting goes at tis deepest? Can a new be nested in a new?
If the answers are 'yes' and 'no' there is a solution: in Robin's solution \\new\{([^}]*)\} replace the [^}]* with, for example, [^{}]*({[^{}]*})?[^{}]* which is "any number of characters that are not {}" followed by maybe an opening bracket, a number of non-brackets, and a closing one, followed by again zero or more not-brackets. This will match nesting up to two. For every extra level of nesting, you need to replace the middle [^{}]* with another [^{}]*({[^{}]*})?[^{}]* leading to fun like \\new\{[^{}]*({[^{}]*({[^{}]*({[^{}]*})?[^{}]*})?[^{}]*})?[^{}]*\} (4 levels).
Example for 2 levels
Example for 4 levels
回答2:
EDIT: Sadly, this solution won't match nested pattern like \new{\foo{text}}.
As far as I know matching balanced patterns with regex requires recursive patterns, and if TeXStudio doesn't support lazy quantifiers I doubt it will support those.
This is not about translating \\new\{(.*?)\}: on your testcase this would return \textbf{test1test2.
I think you'll have to find another tool than TeXStudio regex to do what you want.
Since it seems pretty limited I don't know if TeXStudio supports it, but if your text doesn't contain } you can use
\\new\{([^}]*)\}
[^}] meaning "anything but a }". No need for lazy quantifier this way.
If that doesn't work I guess you could try to take the problem from another angle and replace \new{ and } with an empty string... Depends on your input, you might not want to break the rest of your code.
If your input really is a list a \new{} following each other, you might want to try a version of } *\new{ to avoid replacing other unwanted }, and do a couple cases by hand?
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22963781/how-to-do-the-smallest-match-in-regex-replace-even-if-the-editor-does-not-suppor