Am I comparing hexidecimal values in tcl properly? - comparison

I am doing some simple hex comparison in an if statement.
0x7843E0 is greater than 0x780000 but the code below doesn't output anything.
if {"780000" <= "7843E0"} {
puts "True!"
}
>>
Omitting the trailing 0 works fine however.
if {"780000" <= "7843E"} {
puts "True!"
}
>>> True!
There must be something wrong with the trailing 0 but I don't understand what it is. Any ideas?

You're having problems with the way the expr command parses numbers. (The rest of Tcl is more relaxed about this.) The issue is that:
"780000" gets interpreted as a decimal integer.
"7843E0" gets interpreted as a double precision floating point number. (Compare with 1.2e10; the number parser thinks it is fitting the same sort of pattern.)
"780000" gets interpreted as a decimal integer.
"7843E" gets interpreted as a non-numeric string (a fallback because no numeric interpretation is legal).
The <= operator will happily compare two numbers if they're both numbers, or two strings if at least one of the parameters to it is non-numeric. (Yes, this does make for weird semantics occasionally.) Moreover, he expr command is eager to interpret values as numbers if it possibly can, but it still has Tcl's syntactic rules for what actually is numeric, and what type of numeric those things are. When you don't stick to the rules, it gets a bit odd.
To get a value interpreted as hexadecimal, you have to either prefix its string representation with 0x (e.g., 0x7843E0) or force things with a command such as scan with %x:
scan "780000" %x a
scan "7843E0" %x b
if {$a <= $b} {
puts "True"
}
Forcing interpretations with scan is considered to be one of the best ways of dealing with this, as that only writes canonical values into variables. (If you'd been wanting to handle octal numbers, or were wanting to really always be decimal, you'd use %o and %d respectively; %f is for floating-point numbers.)
Finally, if you're really comparing values as strings with normal ASCII-like rules, look at string compare instead of using <= directly.
if {[string compare $input1 $input2] <= 0} {
...
}

Related

How to specify a range in Ruby

I've been looking for a good way to see if a string of items are all numbers, and thought there might be a way of specifying a range from 0 to 9 and seeing if they're included in the string, but all that I've looked up online has really confused me.
def validate_pin(pin)
(pin.length == 4 || pin.length == 6) && pin.count("0-9") == pin.length
end
The code above is someone else's work and I've been trying to identify how it works. It's a pin checker - takes in a set of characters and ensures the string is either 4 or 6 digits and all numbers - but how does the range work?
When I did this problem I tried to use to_a? Integer and a bunch of other things including ranges such as (0..9) and ("0..9) and ("0".."9") to validate a character is an integer. When I saw ("0-9) it confused the heck out of me, and half an hour of googling and youtube has only left me with regex tutorials (which I'm interested in, but currently just trying to get the basics down)
So to sum this up, my goal is to understand a more semantic/concise way to identify if a character is an integer. Whatever is the simplest way. All and any feedback is welcome. I am a new rubyist and trying to get down my fundamentals. Thank You.
Regex really is the right way to do this. It's specifically for testing patterns in strings. This is how you'd test "do all characters in this string fall in the range of characters 0-9?":
pin.match(/\A[0-9]+\z/)
This regex says "Does this string start and end with at least one of the characters 0-9, with nothing else in between?" - the \A and \z are start-of-string and end-of-string matchers, and the [0-9]+ matches any one or more of any character in that range.
You could even do your entire check in one line of regex:
pin.match(/\A([0-9]{4}|[0-9]{6})\z/)
Which says "Does this string consist of the characters 0-9 repeated exactly 4 times, or the characters 0-9, repeated exactly 6 times?"
Ruby's String#count method does something similar to this, though it just counts the number of occurrences of the characters passed, and it uses something similar to regex ranges to allow you to specify character ranges.
The sequence c1-c2 means all characters between c1 and c2.
Thus, it expands the parameter "0-9" into the list of characters "0123456789", and then it tests how many of the characters in the string match that list of characters.
This will work to verify that a certain number of numbers exist in the string, and the length checks let you implicitly test that no other characters exist in the string. However, regexes let you assert that directly, by ensuring that the whole string matches a given pattern, including length constraints.
Count everything non-digit in pin and check if this count is zero:
pin.count("^0-9").zero?
Since you seem to be looking for answers outside regex and since Chris already spelled out how the count method was being implemented in the example above, I'll try to add one more idea for testing whether a string is an Integer or not:
pin.to_i.to_s == pin
What we're doing is converting the string to an integer, converting that result back to a string, and then testing to see if anything changed during the process. If the result is =>true, then you know nothing changed during the conversion to an integer and therefore the string is only an Integer.
EDIT:
The example above only works if the entire string is an Integer and won’t properly deal with leading zeros. If you want to check to make sure each and every character is an Integer then do something like this instead:
pin.prepend(“1”).to_i.to_s(1..-1) == pin
Part of the question seems to be exactly HOW the following portion of code is doing its job:
pin.count("0-9")
This piece of the code is simply returning a count of how many instances of the numbers 0 through 9 exist in the string. That's only one piece of the relevant section of code though. You need to look at the rest of the line to make sense of it:
pin.count("0-9") == pin.length
The first part counts how many instances then the second part compares that to the length of the string. If they are equal (==) then that means every character in the string is an Integer.
Sometimes negation can be used to advantage:
!pin.match?(/\D/) && [4,6].include?(pin.length)
pin.match?(/\D/) returns true if the string contains a character other than a digit (matching /\D/), in which case it it would be negated to false.
One advantage of using negation here is that if the string contains a character other than a digit pin.match?(/\D/) would return true as soon as a non-digit is found, as opposed to methods that examine all the characters in the string.

is there a way to convert an integer to be always a 4 digit hex number using Lua

I'm creating a Lua script which will calculate a temperature value then format this value as a 4 digit hex number which must always be 4 digits. Having the answer as a string is fine.
Previously in C I have been able to use
data_hex=string.format('%h04x', -21)
which would return ffeb
however the 'h' string formatter is not available to me in Lua
dropping the 'h' doesn't cater for negative answers i.e
data_hex=string.format('%04x', -21)
print(data_hex)
which returns ffffffeb
data_hex=string.format('%04x', 21)
print(data_hex)
which returns 0015
Is there a convenient and portable equivalent to the 'h' string formatter?
I suggest you try using a bitwise AND to truncate any leading hex digits for the value being printed.
If you have a variable temp that you are going to print then you would use something like data_hex=string.format("%04x",temp & 0xffff) which would remove the leading hex digits leaving only the least significant 4 hex digits.
I like this approach as there is less string manipulation and it is congruent with the actual data type of a signed 16 bit number. Whether reducing string manipulation is a concern would depend on the rate at which the temperature is polled.
For further information on the format function see The String Library article.

How to test if a string character is a digit?

How can I test if a certain character of a string variable is a digit in SPSS (and then apply some operations, depending on the result)?
So let's for example say, I have a variable that reflects the street number. Some street numbers have additional character at the end e.g. "12b". Now let's further assume that I extracted the last character (that could be a digit, or the additional letter) into a string variable. After that I'd like to check if this character is a digit or a letter. How can this be done?
I managed to do this with the MAX function, where "mychar" is the character variable to be checked:
COMPUTE digitcheck = (MAX(mychar,"9")="9").
If the content of "mychar" is a digit [0-9] the result of the MAX function will be "9" otherwise the MAX function will return the letter and the equality test fails.
In this way you can also check if a whole string variable contains a letter or not. It looks pretty ugly though, because you have to compare every single character of your string variable.
compute justdigits = (MAX((CHAR.SUBSTR(mystr,1,1), CHAR.SUBSTR(mystr,2,1), CHAR.SUBSTR(mystr,3,1), ..., CHAR.SUBSTR(mystr,n,1),"9")="9").
If you try to turn a letter into a number then it becomes a missing value. Therefore, to test whether a character is a digit, you can do this:
if not missing(number(YourCharacter,f1)) .....
The same test can determine whether a string has only a number in it or not:
compute OnlyNumber=(not missing(number(YourString,f10))).
Note: using the number command on strings will produce warning messages which you can of course ignore.

Regular Expressions in iOS [duplicate]

I'm creating a regexp for password validation to be used in a Java application as a configuration parameter.
The regexp is:
^.*(?=.{8,})(?=..*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=]).*$
The password policy is:
At least 8 chars
Contains at least one digit
Contains at least one lower alpha char and one upper alpha char
Contains at least one char within a set of special chars (##%$^ etc.)
Does not contain space, tab, etc.
I’m missing just point 5. I'm not able to have the regexp check for space, tab, carriage return, etc.
Could anyone help me?
Try this:
^(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])(?=\S+$).{8,}$
Explanation:
^ # start-of-string
(?=.*[0-9]) # a digit must occur at least once
(?=.*[a-z]) # a lower case letter must occur at least once
(?=.*[A-Z]) # an upper case letter must occur at least once
(?=.*[##$%^&+=]) # a special character must occur at least once
(?=\S+$) # no whitespace allowed in the entire string
.{8,} # anything, at least eight places though
$ # end-of-string
It's easy to add, modify or remove individual rules, since every rule is an independent "module".
The (?=.*[xyz]) construct eats the entire string (.*) and backtracks to the first occurrence where [xyz] can match. It succeeds if [xyz] is found, it fails otherwise.
The alternative would be using a reluctant qualifier: (?=.*?[xyz]). For a password check, this will hardly make any difference, for much longer strings it could be the more efficient variant.
The most efficient variant (but hardest to read and maintain, therefore the most error-prone) would be (?=[^xyz]*[xyz]), of course. For a regex of this length and for this purpose, I would dis-recommend doing it that way, as it has no real benefits.
simple example using regex
public class passwordvalidation {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String passwd = "aaZZa44#";
String pattern = "(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])(?=\\S+$).{8,}";
System.out.println(passwd.matches(pattern));
}
}
Explanations:
(?=.*[0-9]) a digit must occur at least once
(?=.*[a-z]) a lower case letter must occur at least once
(?=.*[A-Z]) an upper case letter must occur at least once
(?=.*[##$%^&+=]) a special character must occur at least once
(?=\\S+$) no whitespace allowed in the entire string
.{8,} at least 8 characters
All the previously given answers use the same (correct) technique to use a separate lookahead for each requirement. But they contain a couple of inefficiencies and a potentially massive bug, depending on the back end that will actually use the password.
I'll start with the regex from the accepted answer:
^(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])(?=\S+$).{8,}$
First of all, since Java supports \A and \z I prefer to use those to make sure the entire string is validated, independently of Pattern.MULTILINE. This doesn't affect performance, but avoids mistakes when regexes are recycled.
\A(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])(?=\S+$).{8,}\z
Checking that the password does not contain whitespace and checking its minimum length can be done in a single pass by using the all at once by putting variable quantifier {8,} on the shorthand \S that limits the allowed characters:
\A(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])\S{8,}\z
If the provided password does contain a space, all the checks will be done, only to have the final check fail on the space. This can be avoided by replacing all the dots with \S:
\A(?=\S*[0-9])(?=\S*[a-z])(?=\S*[A-Z])(?=\S*[##$%^&+=])\S{8,}\z
The dot should only be used if you really want to allow any character. Otherwise, use a (negated) character class to limit your regex to only those characters that are really permitted. Though it makes little difference in this case, not using the dot when something else is more appropriate is a very good habit. I see far too many cases of catastrophic backtracking because the developer was too lazy to use something more appropriate than the dot.
Since there's a good chance the initial tests will find an appropriate character in the first half of the password, a lazy quantifier can be more efficient:
\A(?=\S*?[0-9])(?=\S*?[a-z])(?=\S*?[A-Z])(?=\S*?[##$%^&+=])\S{8,}\z
But now for the really important issue: none of the answers mentions the fact that the original question seems to be written by somebody who thinks in ASCII. But in Java strings are Unicode. Are non-ASCII characters allowed in passwords? If they are, are only ASCII spaces disallowed, or should all Unicode whitespace be excluded.
By default \s matches only ASCII whitespace, so its inverse \S matches all Unicode characters (whitespace or not) and all non-whitespace ASCII characters. If Unicode characters are allowed but Unicode spaces are not, the UNICODE_CHARACTER_CLASS flag can be specified to make \S exclude Unicode whitespace. If Unicode characters are not allowed, then [\x21-\x7E] can be used instead of \S to match all ASCII characters that are not a space or a control character.
Which brings us to the next potential issue: do we want to allow control characters? The first step in writing a proper regex is to exactly specify what you want to match and what you don't. The only 100% technically correct answer is that the password specification in the question is ambiguous because it does not state whether certain ranges of characters like control characters or non-ASCII characters are permitted or not.
You should not use overly complex Regex (if you can avoid them) because they are
hard to read (at least for everyone but yourself)
hard to extend
hard to debug
Although there might be a small performance overhead in using many small regular expressions, the points above outweight it easily.
I would implement like this:
bool matchesPolicy(pwd) {
if (pwd.length < 8) return false;
if (not pwd =~ /[0-9]/) return false;
if (not pwd =~ /[a-z]/) return false;
if (not pwd =~ /[A-Z]/) return false;
if (not pwd =~ /[%#$^]/) return false;
if (pwd =~ /\s/) return false;
return true;
}
Thanks for all answers, based on all them but extending sphecial characters:
#SuppressWarnings({"regexp", "RegExpUnexpectedAnchor", "RegExpRedundantEscape"})
String PASSWORD_SPECIAL_CHARS = "##$%^`<>&+=\"!ºª·#~%&'¿¡€,:;*/+-.=_\\[\\]\\(\\)\\|\\_\\?\\\\";
int PASSWORD_MIN_SIZE = 8;
String PASSWORD_REGEXP = "^(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[" + PASSWORD_SPECIAL_CHARS + "])(?=\\S+$).{"+PASSWORD_MIN_SIZE+",}$";
Unit tested:
Password Requirement :
Password should be at least eight (8) characters in length where the system can support it.
Passwords must include characters from at least two (2) of these groupings: alpha, numeric, and special characters.
^.*(?=.{8,})(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-zA-Z])|(?=.{8,})(?=.*\d)(?=.*[!##$%^&])|(?=.{8,})(?=.*[a-zA-Z])(?=.*[!##$%^&]).*$
I tested it and it works
For anyone interested in minimum requirements for each type of character, I would suggest making the following extension over Tomalak's accepted answer:
^(?=(.*[0-9]){%d,})(?=(.*[a-z]){%d,})(?=(.*[A-Z]){%d,})(?=(.*[^0-9a-zA-Z]){%d,})(?=\S+$).{%d,}$
Notice that this is a formatting string and not the final regex pattern. Just substitute %d with the minimum required occurrences for: digits, lowercase, uppercase, non-digit/character, and entire password (respectively). Maximum occurrences are unlikely (unless you want a max of 0, effectively rejecting any such characters) but those could be easily added as well. Notice the extra grouping around each type so that the min/max constraints allow for non-consecutive matches. This worked wonders for a system where we could centrally configure how many of each type of character we required and then have the website as well as two different mobile platforms fetch that information in order to construct the regex pattern based on the above formatting string.
This one checks for every special character :
^(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=\S+$).*[A-Za-z0-9].{8,}$
Java Method ready for you, with parameters
Just copy and paste and set your desired parameters.
If you don't want a module, just comment it or add an "if" as done by me for special char
//______________________________________________________________________________
/**
* Validation Password */
//______________________________________________________________________________
private static boolean validation_Password(final String PASSWORD_Arg) {
boolean result = false;
try {
if (PASSWORD_Arg!=null) {
//_________________________
//Parameteres
final String MIN_LENGHT="8";
final String MAX_LENGHT="20";
final boolean SPECIAL_CHAR_NEEDED=true;
//_________________________
//Modules
final String ONE_DIGIT = "(?=.*[0-9])"; //(?=.*[0-9]) a digit must occur at least once
final String LOWER_CASE = "(?=.*[a-z])"; //(?=.*[a-z]) a lower case letter must occur at least once
final String UPPER_CASE = "(?=.*[A-Z])"; //(?=.*[A-Z]) an upper case letter must occur at least once
final String NO_SPACE = "(?=\\S+$)"; //(?=\\S+$) no whitespace allowed in the entire string
//final String MIN_CHAR = ".{" + MIN_LENGHT + ",}"; //.{8,} at least 8 characters
final String MIN_MAX_CHAR = ".{" + MIN_LENGHT + "," + MAX_LENGHT + "}"; //.{5,10} represents minimum of 5 characters and maximum of 10 characters
final String SPECIAL_CHAR;
if (SPECIAL_CHAR_NEEDED==true) SPECIAL_CHAR= "(?=.*[##$%^&+=])"; //(?=.*[##$%^&+=]) a special character must occur at least once
else SPECIAL_CHAR="";
//_________________________
//Pattern
//String pattern = "(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])(?=\\S+$).{8,}";
final String PATTERN = ONE_DIGIT + LOWER_CASE + UPPER_CASE + SPECIAL_CHAR + NO_SPACE + MIN_MAX_CHAR;
//_________________________
result = PASSWORD_Arg.matches(PATTERN);
//_________________________
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
result=false;
}
return result;
}
Also You Can Do like This.
public boolean isPasswordValid(String password) {
String regExpn =
"^(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])(?=\\S+$).{8,}$";
CharSequence inputStr = password;
Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile(regExpn,Pattern.CASE_INSENSITIVE);
Matcher matcher = pattern.matcher(inputStr);
if(matcher.matches())
return true;
else
return false;
}
Use Passay library which is powerful api.
I think this can do it also (as a simpler mode):
^(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=])[^\s]{8,}$
[Regex Demo]
easy one
("^ (?=.* [0-9]) (?=.* [a-z]) (?=.* [A-Z]) (?=.* [\\W_])[\\S]{8,10}$")
(?= anything ) ->means positive looks forward in all input string and make sure for this condition is written .sample(?=.*[0-9])-> means ensure one digit number is written in the all string.if not written return false
.
(?! anything ) ->(vise versa) means negative looks forward if condition is written return false.
close meaning ^(condition)(condition)(condition)(condition)[\S]{8,10}$
String s=pwd;
int n=0;
for(int i=0;i<s.length();i++)
{
if((Character.isDigit(s.charAt(i))))
{
n=5;
break;
}
else
{
}
}
for(int i=0;i<s.length();i++)
{
if((Character.isLetter(s.charAt(i))))
{
n+=5;
break;
}
else
{
}
}
if(n==10)
{
out.print("Password format correct <b>Accepted</b><br>");
}
else
{
out.print("Password must be alphanumeric <b>Declined</b><br>");
}
Explanation:
First set the password as a string and create integer set o.
Then check the each and every char by for loop.
If it finds number in the string then the n add 5. Then jump to the
next for loop. Character.isDigit(s.charAt(i))
This loop check any alphabets placed in the string. If its find then
add one more 5 in n. Character.isLetter(s.charAt(i))
Now check the integer n by the way of if condition. If n=10 is true
given string is alphanumeric else its not.
Sample code block for strong password:
(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[^a-zA-Z0-9])(?=\\S+$).{6,18}
at least 6 digits
up to 18 digits
one number
one lowercase
one uppercase
can contain all special characters
RegEx is -
^(?:(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[##$%^&+=]).*)[^\s]{8,}$
at least 8 digits {8,}
at least one number (?=.*\d)
at least one lowercase (?=.*[a-z])
at least one uppercase (?=.*[A-Z])
at least one special character (?=.*[##$%^&+=])
No space [^\s]
A more general answer which accepts all the special characters including _ would be slightly different:
^(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[\W|\_])(?=\S+$).{8,}$
The difference (?=.*[\W|\_]) translates to "at least one of all the special characters including the underscore".

Strip trailing zeroes and decimal point

With Lua, I'm formatting numbers to a variable number of digits and strip trailing zeroes/decimal points like
string.format(" %."..precision.."f", value):
gsub("(%..-)0*$", "%1"):
gsub("%.$", "")
Value is of type number (positive, negative, integer, fractional).
So the task is solved, but for aesthetic, educational and performance reasons I'm interested in learning whether there's a more elegant approach - possibly one that only uses one gsub().
%g in string.format() is no option as scientific notation is to be avoided.
If your precision is always > 0, then trailing characters are guaranteed to be either sequence of 0 for floats or . followed by sequence of 0 for integers. Therefore you can identify and strip this "trailer", leaving rest of the string with:
string.format(" %."..precision.."f", value)
:gsub("%.?0+$", "")
It won't mangle integers ending in 0 because those would have float point after significant zeros so they won't get caught as "sequence of 0 right before end of string.
If precision is 0, then you should simply not execute gsub at all.

Resources