|
Size: 6058
Comment: first-line
|
Size: 5495
Comment: several corrections.
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| First, you have to define what you mean by "number". The most common case when people ask this seems to be "a non-negative integer, with no leading + sign". Or in other words, a string of all digits. This can be checked using standard [[glob|globs]]: | First, you have to define what you mean by "number". The most common case when people ask this seems to be "a non-negative integer, with no leading + sign". Or in other words, a string of all digits. Other times, people want to validate a floating-point input, with optional sign and optional decimal point. === Hand parsing === If you're validating a simple "string of digits", you can do it with a [[glob]]: {{{ # Bash / Ksh if [[ -n $foo && $foo != *[!0123456789]* ]]; then printf '"%s" is strictly numeric\n' "$foo" else printf '"%s" has a non-digit somewhere in it or is empty' "$foo" fi >&2 }}} Avoid `[0-9]` or `[[:digit:]]` which in some locales and some systems can match characters other than 0123456789. The same thing can be done in POSIX shells as well, using {{{case}}}: {{{ # POSIX case $var in '') printf 'var is empty\n';; *[!0123456789]*) printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";; *) printf '%s is strictly numeric\n' "$var";; esac >&2 }}} Of course, if all you care about is valid vs. invalid, you can combine cases: {{{ # POSIX case $var in '' | *[!0123456789]*) echo "$0: $var: invalid digit" >&2; exit 1;; esac }}} If you need to allow a leading negative sign, or if want a valid floating-point number or something else more complex, then there are a few possible ways. Standard globs aren't expressive enough to do this, but you can trim off any sign and then compare: {{{ # POSIX case ${var#[-+]} in # notice ${var#prefix} substitution to trim sign '') printf 'var is empty\n';; .) printf 'var is just a dot\n';; *.*.*) printf '%s has more than one decimal point in it\n' "$var";; *[!0123456789.]*) printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";; *) printf '%s looks like a valid float\n' "$var";; esac >&2 }}} Or in Bash, we can use [[glob|extended globs]]: {{{ # Bash -- extended globs must be enabled explicitly in versions prior to 4.1. # Check whether the variable is all digits. shopt -s extglob [[ $var = +([0123456789]) ]] }}} A more complex case: {{{ # Bash / ksh shopt -s extglob if [[ $foo = @(*[0123456789]*|!([+-]|)) && $foo = ?([+-])*([0123456789])?(.*([0123456789])) ]]; then echo 'foo is a floating-point number' fi }}} Optionally, `case..esac` may have been used in shells with extended pattern matching. The leading test of {{{$foo}}} is to ensure that it contains at least one digit, isn't empty, and contains more than just + or - by itself. If your definition of "a valid number" is even more complex, or if you need a solution that works in legacy Bourne shells, you might prefer to use an external tool's [[RegularExpression|regular expression]] syntax. Here is a portable version (explained in detail [[http://www.wplug.org/wiki/Meeting-20100612#EXERCISE_TWO|here]]), using {{{awk}}} (not `egrep` which is line based so would be tricked by variables that contain newline characters): {{{ # Bourne if awk -- 'BEGIN {exit !(ARGV[1] ~ /^[-+]?([0123456789]+\.?|[0123456789]*\.[0123456789]+)$/)}' "$foo"; then printf '"%s" is a number\n' "$foo" else printf '"%s" is not a number\n' "$foo" fi }}} Bash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the [[ command. |
| Line 7: | Line 93: |
| if [[ $foo = *[^0-9]* ]]; then echo "'$foo' has a non-digit somewhere in it" |
# The regexp must be stored in a var and expanded for backward compatibility with versions < 3.2 regexp='^[-+]?[0123456789]*(\.[0123456789]*)?$' if [[ $foo = *[0123456789]* && $foo =~ $regexp ]]; then printf '"%s" looks rather like a number\n' "$foo" |
| Line 10: | Line 99: |
| echo "'$foo' is strictly numeric" | printf '"%s" doesn't look particularly numeric to me\n' "$foo" |
| Line 13: | Line 102: |
| === Using the parsing done by [ and printf (or "using eq") === {{{ # fails with ksh if [ "$foo" -eq "$foo" ] 2>/dev/null; then echo "$foo is an integer" fi }}} `[` parses the variable and interprets it a decimal integer because of the `-eq`. If the parsing succeeds the test is trivially true; if it fails `[` prints an error message that `2>/dev/null` hides and sets a status different from 0. However this method fails if the shell is ksh, because ksh evaluates the variable as an arithmetic expression (and that would constitute an arbitrary command injection vulnerability). |
|
| Line 14: | Line 111: |
| The same thing can be done in Korn and POSIX shells as well, using {{{case}}}: | Be careful: the following trick with `printf` (not supported by all shells, and the list of supported float representations varies with the shell as well; not to mention the command injection vulnerability in ksh or zsh) |
| Line 17: | Line 114: |
| # ksh, POSIX case "$foo" in *[!0-9]*) echo "'$foo' has a non-digit somewhere in it" ;; *) echo "'$foo' is strictly numeric" ;; esac }}} If what you actually mean is "a valid floating-point number" or something else more complex, then there are a few possible ways. Standard globs aren't expressive enough to do this, but we can use [[glob|extended globs]]: {{{ # Bash -- extended globs must be enabled. # Check whether the variable is all digits. shopt -s extglob [[ $var == +([0-9]) ]] }}} A more complex case: {{{ # Bash shopt -s extglob [[ $foo = *[0-9]* && $foo = ?([+-])*([0-9])?(.*([0-9])) ]] && echo "foo is a floating-point number" }}} The leading test of {{{$foo}}} is to ensure that it contains at least one digit. The extended glob, by itself, would match the empty string, or a lone {{{+}}} or {{{-}}}, which may not be desirable behavior. The features enabled with {{{extglob}}} in Bash are also allowed in the Korn shell by default. The difference here is that ksh lacks Bash's {{{[[}}} and must use {{{case}}} instead: {{{ # ksh - extended globs are on by default case $foo in *[0-9]*) case $foo in ?([+-])*([0-9])?(.*([0-9]))) echo "foo is a number";; esac;; esac }}} Note that this uses the same extended glob as the Bash example before it; the third closing parenthesis at the end of it is actually part of the {{{case}}} syntax. If your definition of "a valid number" is even more complex, or if you need a solution that works in legacy Bourne shells, you might prefer to use an external tool's [[RegularExpression|regular expression]] syntax. Here is a portable version, using {{{egrep}}}: {{{ # Bourne if test "$foo" && echo "$foo" | egrep '^[-+]?[0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)?$' >/dev/null then echo "'$foo' might be a number" else echo "'$foo' might not be a number" |
if printf %f "$foo" >/dev/null 2>&1; then printf '"%s" is a float\n' "$foo" |
| Line 69: | Line 118: |
| is broken: about the arguments of the{{{ a}}}, {{{A}}}, {{{e}}}, {{{E}}}, {{{f}}}, {{{F}}}, {{{g}}}, or {{{G}}} format modifiers, POSIX specifies that ''if the leading character is a single-quote or double-quote, the value shall be the numeric value in the underlying codeset of the character following the single-quote or double-quote.'' Hence this fails when {{{foo}}} expands to a string with a leading single-quote or double-quote: the previous command will happily validate the string as a float. It also returns 0 when {{{foo}}} expands to a number with a leading {{{0x}}}, which is a valid number in a shell script but may not work elsewhere. |
|
| Line 70: | Line 121: |
| (Like the extended globs, this [[RegularExpression|extended regular expression]] will match a lone {{{+}}} or {{{-}}}. The initial {{{test}}} command only requires a non-empty string. Closing the last "bug" is left as an exercise for the reader, mostly because GreyCat is too damned lazy to learn {{{expr(1)}}}.) Bash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the [[ command. However, due to serious bugs and syntax changes in Bash's [[ regex support, we '''do not recommend''' using it. Nevertheless, if I simply omit all Bash regex answers here, someone will come along and fill them in -- and they probably won't work, or won't contain all the caveats necessary. So, in the interest of preventing disasters, here are the Bash regex answers that you should not use. {{{ # Bash 3.1 ONLY if [[ $foo = *[0-9]* && $foo =~ ^[-+]?[0-9]*\(\.[0-9]*\)?$ ]]; then echo "'$foo' looks rather like a number" else echo "'$foo' doesn't look particularly numeric to me" fi }}} Unfortunately, Bash changed the syntax of its regular expression support after version 3.1, so the following ''may'' work in some patched versions of Bash 3.2: {{{ # Bash 3.2 *PATCHED* only! if [[ $foo = *[0-9]* && $foo =~ ^[-+]?[0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)?$ ]]; then echo "'$foo' looks rather like a number" else echo "'$foo' doesn't look particularly numeric to me" fi }}} It fails rather spectacularly in bash 3.1 and in bash 3.2 without patches. Note that the parentheses in the {{{egrep}}} regular expression and the bash 3.2.patched regular expression don't require backslashes in front of them, whereas the ones in the bash 3.1 command do. Stuffing the Bash regex into a variable, and then using {{{[[ $foo =~ $bar ]]}}}, may also be an effective workaround in some cases. But this belongs in a separate FAQ.... If you just want to guarantee ahead of time that a variable contains an integer, without actually checking, you can give the variable the "integer" attribute. {{{ declare -i foo foo=-10+1; echo "$foo" # prints -9 foo="hello"; echo "$foo" # the value of the variable "hello" is evaluated; if unset, foo is 0 foo="Some random string" # results in an error. }}} Any value assigned to a variable with the integer attribute set is evaluated as an [[ArithmeticExpression|arithmetic expression]] just like inside `$(( ))`. Bash will raise an error if you try to assign an invalid arithmetic expression. In Bash and ksh93, if a variable which has been declared integer is used in a `read` command, the user's input is treated as an [[ArithmeticExpression|arithmetic expression]], as with assignment. In particular, if the user types an identifier, the variable will be set to the value of the variable with that name, and `read` will give no other indication of a problem. {{{ # Bash (and ksh93, if you replace declare with typeset) $ declare -i foo $ read foo hello $ echo $foo # prints 0; 'hello' is unset, so is treated as 0 for arithmetic purposes $ hello=5 $ read foo # user types hello again hello $ echo $foo # prints 5, the value of 'hello' as an arithmetic expression }}} Pretty useless if you want to read only integers. In the older Korn shell (ksh88), if a variable is declared integer and used in a `read` command, and the user types an invalid integer, the shell complains, the read command returns an error status, and the value of the variable is unchanged. {{{ # ksh88 $ typeset -i foo $ foo=42 $ read foo hello ksh: hello: bad number $ echo $? 1 $ echo $foo 42 }}} |
You can use `%d` to parse an integer. Take care that the parsing might be (is supposed to be?) [[locale]]-dependent. |
How can I tell whether a variable contains a valid number?
First, you have to define what you mean by "number". The most common case when people ask this seems to be "a non-negative integer, with no leading + sign". Or in other words, a string of all digits. Other times, people want to validate a floating-point input, with optional sign and optional decimal point.
Hand parsing
If you're validating a simple "string of digits", you can do it with a glob:
# Bash / Ksh
if [[ -n $foo && $foo != *[!0123456789]* ]]; then
printf '"%s" is strictly numeric\n' "$foo"
else
printf '"%s" has a non-digit somewhere in it or is empty' "$foo"
fi >&2Avoid [0-9] or [[:digit:]] which in some locales and some systems can match characters other than 0123456789.
The same thing can be done in POSIX shells as well, using case:
# POSIX
case $var in
'')
printf 'var is empty\n';;
*[!0123456789]*)
printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
*)
printf '%s is strictly numeric\n' "$var";;
esac >&2Of course, if all you care about is valid vs. invalid, you can combine cases:
# POSIX
case $var in
'' | *[!0123456789]*)
echo "$0: $var: invalid digit" >&2; exit 1;;
esacIf you need to allow a leading negative sign, or if want a valid floating-point number or something else more complex, then there are a few possible ways. Standard globs aren't expressive enough to do this, but you can trim off any sign and then compare:
# POSIX
case ${var#[-+]} in # notice ${var#prefix} substitution to trim sign
'')
printf 'var is empty\n';;
.)
printf 'var is just a dot\n';;
*.*.*)
printf '%s has more than one decimal point in it\n' "$var";;
*[!0123456789.]*)
printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
*)
printf '%s looks like a valid float\n' "$var";;
esac >&2Or in Bash, we can use extended globs:
# Bash -- extended globs must be enabled explicitly in versions prior to 4.1. # Check whether the variable is all digits. shopt -s extglob [[ $var = +([0123456789]) ]]
A more complex case:
# Bash / ksh shopt -s extglob if [[ $foo = @(*[0123456789]*|!([+-]|)) && $foo = ?([+-])*([0123456789])?(.*([0123456789])) ]]; then echo 'foo is a floating-point number' fi
Optionally, case..esac may have been used in shells with extended pattern matching. The leading test of $foo is to ensure that it contains at least one digit, isn't empty, and contains more than just + or - by itself.
If your definition of "a valid number" is even more complex, or if you need a solution that works in legacy Bourne shells, you might prefer to use an external tool's regular expression syntax. Here is a portable version (explained in detail here), using awk (not egrep which is line based so would be tricked by variables that contain newline characters):
# Bourne
if awk -- 'BEGIN {exit !(ARGV[1] ~ /^[-+]?([0123456789]+\.?|[0123456789]*\.[0123456789]+)$/)}' "$foo"; then
printf '"%s" is a number\n' "$foo"
else
printf '"%s" is not a number\n' "$foo"
fiBash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the [[ command.
# Bash
# The regexp must be stored in a var and expanded for backward compatibility with versions < 3.2
regexp='^[-+]?[0123456789]*(\.[0123456789]*)?$'
if [[ $foo = *[0123456789]* && $foo =~ $regexp ]]; then
printf '"%s" looks rather like a number\n' "$foo"
else
printf '"%s" doesn't look particularly numeric to me\n' "$foo"
fi
Using the parsing done by [ and printf (or "using eq")
# fails with ksh if [ "$foo" -eq "$foo" ] 2>/dev/null; then echo "$foo is an integer" fi
[ parses the variable and interprets it a decimal integer because of the -eq. If the parsing succeeds the test is trivially true; if it fails [ prints an error message that 2>/dev/null hides and sets a status different from 0. However this method fails if the shell is ksh, because ksh evaluates the variable as an arithmetic expression (and that would constitute an arbitrary command injection vulnerability).
Be careful: the following trick with printf (not supported by all shells, and the list of supported float representations varies with the shell as well; not to mention the command injection vulnerability in ksh or zsh)
if printf %f "$foo" >/dev/null 2>&1; then printf '"%s" is a float\n' "$foo" fi
is broken: about the arguments of the a, A, e, E, f, F, g, or G format modifiers, POSIX specifies that if the leading character is a single-quote or double-quote, the value shall be the numeric value in the underlying codeset of the character following the single-quote or double-quote. Hence this fails when foo expands to a string with a leading single-quote or double-quote: the previous command will happily validate the string as a float. It also returns 0 when foo expands to a number with a leading 0x, which is a valid number in a shell script but may not work elsewhere.
You can use %d to parse an integer. Take care that the parsing might be (is supposed to be?) locale-dependent.