Skip to main content
Ben Nadel at the jQuery Conference 2010 (Boston, MA) with: Adam Kirschner
Ben Nadel at the jQuery Conference 2010 (Boston, MA) with: Adam Kirschner ( @hikirsch )

The RegEx Of Everyday Things

Published in , , Comments (12)

I'm a massive fan of Regular Expressions. I started learning about them 20-years ago for the purposes of data cleaning at Nylon Technology; and, since then, not a day goes by where I don't use them in some form. A lot of engineers view pattern matching as a dark art; and, there's no question that RegEx patterns can be very complicated. But, they don't have to be. Simple patterns can still add a lot value in your every day engineering life. And, there's no place where this rings more true than in your "Code Search".

Regardless of which editor or IDE (Integrated Development Environment) you use, you have the ability to search for text within your project's filesystem. This search functionality always comes in two flavors: literal text matching and RegEx pattern matching. I recommend that you start using RegEx pattern matching for all your code searches. This will chip away at the mystery of patterns; and, show you that they don't have to be so intimidating.

In fact, literal text matching and RegEx pattern matching have a large overlap. RegEx patterns only get RegExy when you include a small subset of special characters (such as *, ., and +). If, for example, you're only searching for simple alpha-numeric strings, RegEx pattern matching is performing literal text matching.

When you search for the RegEx pattern, dog, you're searching for the literal string, dog. And, when you search for the RegEx pattern, TODO:, you're searching for the literal string, TODO:.

And, of course, RegEx provides an "escape valve" when you have to include one of the special characters but you want it to match as a literal character. All you have to do is escape it.

The most basic escape is the back-slash (\). When you include a \ in your pattern, it tells the RegEx engine to treat the next character as a literal character. In the following pattern, we're going to escape the (.) character which normally means "match any character":


In this case, the \. matches on the literal (.) character.

If your text contains multiple special characters and you don't want to escape them individually, some IDEs (depending on the underlying RegEx engine) allow you to escape an entire segment by wrapping it with the \Q prefix and \E suffix:


In this case, we're matching on the literal (.) character. This \Q-\E notation means "quote". Which makes it easy to remember since Q and E are the first and last letters in the word, "quote", respectively. And, the \E is optional if it's at the end of the pattern:


Notice that I have the leading \Q, but no \E at the end.

At this point, you have everything you need to start using the RegEx pattern matching mode for all searches in your IDE. And, even if all of your searches are for escaped or quoted literal values, this is your starting-off point. From there, you can begin to play with more powerful pattern matching constructs as you get comfortable.

But, I don't want to turn this into a generic RegEx tutorial. My goal here is only to share the practical pattern matching techniques that I use every day to locate code within my projects. And, I hope that it will inspire you to start experimenting with more RegEx in your own life.

Finding Multiple Words at the Same Time

One of the easiest RegEx constructs to use is the pipe (|) which "OR"s together two different patterns. This allows me to search for multiple string literals (or patterns) at the same time. For example, I might be looking for all instances of "timers" in my JavaScript:


This will match on either setTimeout or setInterval.

You can use (|) as many times as you want within a RegEx pattern. You can even use parenthesis to perform a local grouping of OR'd values. For example, I can rewrite the above pattern to "factor out" the set prefix:


This will still match on either setTimeout or setInterval; but, it goes about it in a slightly different way.

Finding Slight Variations in Spelling

I am a terrible speller. And, when it comes to words that might have a dash in them, I am both terrible and inconsistent. Which means that I might use both copilot and co-pilot in the same piece of writing.

If I wanted to locate both of these spelling variations at the same time, I could include the (?) character, which marks the preceding character as optional:


The -? tells the RegEx engine that the - character may not exist; and, that it must match on either co-pilot or copilot.

Sometimes, I combine two special characters to make this a bit more flexible. Instead of using the - in this example, I can use the . character. In RegEx, (.) means "match any character" (usually except the newline). I can use the pattern .? to mean match any character, optionally (ie, zero or one times):


This will match co-pilot and copilot. But, it will also match co_pilot and co:pilot. Not that I need to match on those latter two; but, if they were in the target text, the matches would be found.

Aside: The (.?) construct is particularly helpful in AngularJS where there are a variety of ways in which to invoke a directive in the HTML. For example, ng-bind, ng:bind, and ng_bind are equivalent references to the ngBind directive. I could, therefore, use the RegEx pattern, ng.?bind, to locate both the directive definition (ngBind) and all of the directive references in the same search.

Finding a Word That is Not a Substring

Sometimes, I need to find a word that is also a common substring in other words. For example, I might want to find the word timeout but not match on setTimeout. The easiest thing to do here is include a "word boundary" match (\b). The (\b) character tells the RegEx engine to find the places where a "word character" and "non-word character" are next to each other.

To find timeout and only timeout, I can search for:


This tells the RegEx engine to find timeout, but only if the t is located at a word boundary. Which will match on timeout but not on setTimeout.

Finding a Quoted Value

Sometimes, I need to find a quoted value. But, I don't know if the value will be quoted using single-quotes or double-quotes. As such, I use a "character class" (also known as a "character set") to allow for either possibilities. A character class uses [xyz] notation; and, tells the RegEx engine to match one of either x, y, or z.

So, if I needed to find the quoted value, some-value, I can create a pattern that includes either type of quotes:


The character class, ['"], means match either the single-quote character or the double-quote character. Which means that the previous pattern will match both "some-value" and 'some-value'.

Finding a Quoted Substring

Sometimes, I need to find a substring that is contained within a quoted value but which does not represent the entire quoted value. This most often comes up when I am searching for tokens inside an HTML attribute.

For example, I might have an HTML div with a number of CSS classes; and, I'm trying to find HTML elements that have the class of project:

<div class="card project priority">

This is a particularly hard problem with the class attribute because an element can have any number of CSS class names; and, the names can be in any order. So, a literal match isn't feasible.

In this case, I can use a "negated character class". This uses the same [xyz] notation as the previous character class; only, we're going to prefix it with (^): [^xyz]. This tells the RegEx engine to match any character that is not x, y, or z.

With this, I can create a pattern that locates the project token inside a quote:


Here, the [^"]* tells the RegEx engine to match zero-or-more characters before the project literal so long as none of those characters are ". This prevents the match from going past the boundaries of the attribute value.

Aside: By default, RegEx matching is "greedy"; which means, it will try to find the longest string first and then back-track in an effort to find shorter strings (as needed). This can be computationally expensive. To make the matching more efficient - in this case - we can turn the pattern into a lazy match by adding ? after the *. As in: [^"]*?. This will do (roughly) the same thing; but, will try to make the shorter match first before attempting a longer match (if needed).

Finding Things That Don't Exist

Most of my pattern matching deals with constructs that are in the code. But, sometimes, I need to look for things that aren't there. Consider throwing errors in JavaScript. Technically, these two lines of code do the same thing:

throw( new Error( "Oh no!" ) );

... and, without the new operator:

throw( Error( "Oh no!" ) );

Internally, the native Error class checks to see if it's being invoked as a constructor; and, normalizes the two calls on the developer's behalf.

But, just because something works, it doesn't mean that it's "right". And, as a discerning engineer, I always want to include the new operator. And so, to find incorrect invocations, I need to search for cases of Error that are not preceded by the new keyword.

To do this, I can use a "negative look behind" assertion:

(?<!new) Error

This tells the RegEx engine to match the Error literal; but, only if it isn't preceded by new.

RegEx allows for look behinds that are either negative (?<!) or positive (?<=). And, allows for look aheads that are either negative (?!) or positive (?=). These are complicated constructs; so, I won't go into any more detail.

That said, this negative look behind assertion can also be a great way to weed-out false positives in your matches. For example, the pattern:


... will find matches for action but will omit any matches for transaction.

Finding Variability in Property References

In ColdFusion, component properties can be accessed in two different ways: either as a direct variable reference or as an accessor invocation. For example, a component that has the property, redis, can access this property using either of these two calls:

  • redis - direct reference.
  • getRedis() - accessor invocation.

Which means, method calls - like .hmget() - on the redis property can be written as either:

  • redis.hmget()
  • getRedis().hmget()

If I want to find all the places in which the hmget method is being invoked, I need to account for both of these access patterns:


Here, we're saying that the get prefix is optional. And, that redis is followed by some combination of characters including, [().\s], before the hmget token is matched. The use of the character class accounts for both the accessor invocation and the direct reverence since it will match on both redis. and redis().. And, the \s allows for white space (line-breaks) between the redis reference and the method call.

Dipping Your Toe Into Pattern Matching

I cannot say it enough, that RegEx pattern matching is an essential tool to have in your tool belt. But, I understand that Regular Expression patterns represent a lot of complexity; and, that a lot of people don't know where to start. I hope that I've demonstrated that using RegEx pattern matching in your code search is a great first step. You can start off super simple (especially with literal matches); and then, practice these techniques daily and slowly build up a better understanding through repetition.

RegEx all the things!

Reader Comments



I've found Regex to be both helpful and frustrating in equal parts. When I need a quick pattern, it often takes me longer to write a good pattern than to weed through all the false positives I'd get without it. But when you have a great pattern, magic ✨

One I wish I had a good pattern for is component invocation. There are many ways to instantiate a component in coldfusion, and I haven't landed on a good pattern yet that finds them all. Do you have anything for this?



RegEx is great, but it definitely doesn't solve all the problems the best. I used to try to use it too much for getting at HTML data. But, then I realized that it was much easier to just parse the HTML with something like jSoup and the query the Document Object Model, jQuery-style. But, there are still so many places where it works great.

Re: component instantiation, that's a tough one. You're right, there's a lot of stuff that can happen there. I think most of the time, I rely on the name of the component itself as the think I can hook into in my search.

But, sometimes that only gets me part of the way because sometimes I'll actually rename a component when I'm injecting into another component. As an example from my Inversion of Control (IoC) experiment, I have stuff like this:


... where I'm renaming BugSnagLogger as logger internally. So, I can search for BugSnagLogger as a stand-alone token; but, I can't search for method calls off of it directly.

Over time, I've tried to stop doing too much "meta programming" and "indirection" for exactly these types of reasons. My goal now is, as best I can, write code that's easy to find and easy to delete.



Good sir! I never learned Perl, but I hear good things. Actually, to bring this whole conversation full-circle (back to text editors), I first started using RegEx in Macromedia HomeSite. I would get all this data from Excel documents that clients would give us. Then, I would copy-pasted it into HomeSite and run RegEx find/replace to clean up the data.

Man, that feels like so long ago.


@ Ben

Thanks for your reply and your insights. My specific challenge is compounded by a couple factors...

  1. Our code base is SUPER inconsistent. Many chef's in the kitchen, all with their own style/preferences.

So you'll see instances like...

1a: <cfinvoke component="cfc.sites" method="getSiteData" returnvariable="siteData">

1b: siteObj = new admin.cfc.sites();

1c: siteObj = createObject("component", "admin.cfc.sites");

  1. Component naming is oftentimes a very generic word (e.g. sites.cfc), so exact match searches for "sites" generates a ton of false positives.

  2. Again, inconsistency in the mapping of them with the full (or partial path) (e.g. admin.cfc.sites vs cfc.sites vs sites)

Makes things challenging for sure!



Oooof! That's more variety than I even had considered. You're really mixing the full gamut of options there. This code must have been around for a really long time! But yeah, that + generic names for stuff, that's a tough one. 😳


@Chris G - This comment "it often takes me longer to write a good pattern than to weed through all the false positives I'd get without it. " is WAY too close to home, LOL. I use Regex fairly commonly for situations in my code that demand it, but am lazy about figuring it out for myself when it could save me some time. This is a great article on some very obvious usages for developer IDE work.


Thanks for resubscribing me! I had missed the most recent updates.

Now days, I reach for copilot to take a first stab at complex REGEX. It's done a pretty good job so far and is also an education to interpret the results. It's lazy, but I'm ok with that... Especially when it's a one-off need.


@Chris, my pleasure. And, thank you so much -- you probably participate more on this blog than anyone else; and, knowing that you weren't getting comment emails - it's all the more impressive (and appreciated).

I really need to try out Copilot one of these days. I'm so lazy about it.


@Ben Nadel,

I've recently been laid off (as of last Friday), so no more company sponsored copilot access for me unfortunately...but I 💯 suggest giving it a try. It gets in the way as much as it's helpful, but still... pretty good stuff.

It feels good to be noticed (re my blog participation). Yours is the only blog I follow consistently. I learn (and am reminded of) so much here! 🙏🙏🙏


@Chris, sorry to hear about your situation. It must be hard. I know that my job is ending in Dec 2024; and, I'm very anxious about what comes after that. But, in the face of the unknown, you've certainly been one of the constants. It is seen and appreciated! 🙌

@Dmitriy, yeah, sorry about that. I think I have all the comment stuff up and running again.

Post A Comment — I'd Love To Hear From You!

Post a Comment

I believe in love. I believe in compassion. I believe in human rights. I believe that we can afford to give more of these gifts to the world around us because it costs us nothing to be decent and kind and understanding. And, I want you to know that when you land on this site, you are accepted for who you are, no matter how you identify, what truths you live, or whatever kind of goofy shit makes you feel alive! Rock on with your bad self!
Ben Nadel