Differences between revisions 31 and 45 (spanning 14 versions)
Revision 31 as of 2012-10-24 17:34:14
Size: 4015
Editor: ormaaj
Comment: rm the entire "declare -i" section with dangerous examples. declare -i is NOT a method of testing for valid integers. It requires extra care - not recommended for beginners.
Revision 45 as of 2015-03-01 16:03:15
Size: 4661
Editor: pdm-l03
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 2: Line 2:
Line 16: Line 17:
Line 20: Line 20:
# ksh, POSIX
case "$foo" in
    *[!0-9]*) echo "'$foo' has a non-digit somewhere in it" ;;
    *) echo "'$foo' is strictly numeric" ;;
# POSIX
case $var in
    '')
        printf 'var is empty\n';;
    *[!0-9]*)
        printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
    *)
        printf '%s is strictly numeric\n' "$var";;
esac >&2
}}}
Of course, if all you care about is vald vs. invalid, you can combine cases:

{{{
# POSIX
case $var in
    '' | *[!0-9]*)
        echo "$0: $var: invalid digit" >&2; exit 1;;
Line 26: Line 39:

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 we can use [[glob|extended globs]]:
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:
Line 30: Line 42:
# Bash -- extended globs must be enabled. # POSIX
case ${var#[-+]} in # notice ${var#prefix} substitution to trim sign
    '')
        printf 'var is empty\n';;
    *.*.*)
        printf '%s has more than one decimal point in it\n' "$var";;
    *[!0-9.]*)
        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.
Line 33: Line 60:
[[ $var == +([0-9]) ]] [[ $var = +([0-9]) ]]
Line 35: Line 62:
Line 39: Line 65:
# Bash # Bash / ksh
Line 41: Line 67:
[[ $foo = *[0-9]* && $foo = ?([+-])*([0-9])?(.*([0-9])) ]] &&
  echo "foo is a floating-point number"

if
[[ $foo = @(*[0-9]*|!([+-]|)) && $foo = ?([+-])*([0-9])?(.*([0-9])) ]]; then
  echo 'foo is a floating-point number'
fi
Line 44: Line 72:

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.

Korn shell has extended globs enabled by default, but lacks `[[`, so we must use `case` to do the glob-matching:

{{{
# Korn
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.
Optionally, `case..esac` may have been used in shells with extended pattern matching. The leading test of {{{$foo}}} is to ensure that it contains at least one digit, isn't empty, and contains more than just + or - by itself.
Line 65: Line 78:
if echo "$foo" | egrep '^[-+]?([0-9]+\.?|[0-9]*\.[0-9]+)$' >/dev/null
then
if echo "$foo" | grep -qE '^[-+]?([0-9]+\.?|[0-9]*\.[0-9]+)$'; then
Line 72: Line 84:

Bash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the [[ command. Due to bugs and changes in the implementation of the `=~` feature throughout bash 3.x, we '''do not recommend''' using it, but people do it anyway, so we have to maintain this example (''and keep restoring this warning, too, when people delete it''):
Bash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the [[ command.
Line 77: Line 88:
# Put the RE in a var for backward compatibility with versions <3.2
regexp='^[-+]?[0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)?$' 
# The regexp must be stored in a var and expanded for backward compatibility with versions < 3.2

regexp='^[-+]?[0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)?$'
Line 85: Line 97:
=== Using the parsing done by [ and printf (or "using eq") ===
{{{
# fails with ksh
if [ "$foo" -eq "$foo" ] 2>/dev/null; then
 echo "$foo is an integer"
fi
}}}
`[` parses the variable and interprets it as an 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.
Line 86: Line 106:
=== Using the parsing done by [ and printf (or "using eq") === Be careful: the following trick with `printf` (no supported by all shells)
Line 89: Line 109:
# fails with ksh
if [ "$foo" -eq "$foo" ] 2>/dev/null;then
 echo "$foo is an integer"
fi
}}}

`[` parses the variable and interprets it as in integer because of the `-eq`. If the parsing succeds 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.

You can use a similar trick with `printf`:
{{{
# POSIX
if printf "%f" "$foo" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
# BASH
if printf %f "$foo" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
Line 104: Line 114:
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.

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
if [[ $foo != *[!0-9]* ]]; then
    echo "'$foo' is strictly numeric"
else
    echo "'$foo' has a non-digit somewhere in it"
fi

The same thing can be done in Korn and POSIX shells as well, using case:

# POSIX
case $var in
    '')
        printf 'var is empty\n';;
    *[!0-9]*)
        printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
    *)
        printf '%s is strictly numeric\n' "$var";;
esac >&2

Of course, if all you care about is vald vs. invalid, you can combine cases:

# POSIX
case $var in
    '' | *[!0-9]*)
        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 ${var#prefix} substitution to trim sign
    '')
        printf 'var is empty\n';;
    *.*.*)
        printf '%s has more than one decimal point in it\n' "$var";;
    *[!0-9.]*)
        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 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 = +([0-9]) ]]

A more complex case:

# Bash / ksh
shopt -s extglob

if [[ $foo = @(*[0-9]*|!([+-]|)) && $foo = ?([+-])*([0-9])?(.*([0-9])) ]]; 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 egrep:

# Bourne
if echo "$foo" | grep -qE '^[-+]?([0-9]+\.?|[0-9]*\.[0-9]+)$'; then
    echo "'$foo' is a number"
else
    echo "'$foo' is not a number"
fi

Bash 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='^[-+]?[0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)?$'
if [[ $foo = *[0-9]* && $foo =~ $regexp ]]; then
    echo "'$foo' looks rather like a number"
else
    echo "'$foo' doesn't look particularly numeric to me"
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 as an 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.

Be careful: the following trick with printf (no supported by all shells)

# BASH
if printf %f "$foo" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "$foo is a float"
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.

You can use %d to parse an integer. Take care that the parsing might be (is supposed to be?) locale-dependent.

BashFAQ/054 (last edited 2022-08-01 10:02:57 by 89)