Differences between revisions 47 and 53 (spanning 6 versions)
Revision 47 as of 2016-02-06 03:08:22
Size: 4660
Editor: larryv
Comment: fixed typo
Revision 53 as of 2022-04-19 05:23:33
Size: 5741
Editor: emanuele6
Comment: clarify that that enabling the extglob shopt is not necessary to use extglob patterns inside of [[ in bash4.1
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 8: Line 8:
{{{
# Bash
if [[ $foo != *[!0-9]* ]]; then
    echo "'$foo' is strictly numeric"
{{{#!highlight bash
# Bash / Ksh
if [[ -n $foo && $foo != *[!0123456789]* ]]; then
    printf '"%s" is strictly numeric\n' "$foo"
Line 13: Line 13:
    echo "'$foo' has a non-digit somewhere in it"
fi
    printf '"%s" has a non-digit somewhere in it or is empty\n' "$foo"
fi >&2
Line 16: Line 16:
The same thing can be done in Korn and POSIX shells as well, using {{{case}}}:
Line 18: Line 17:
{{{ 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}}}:

{{{#!highlight bash
Line 23: Line 26:
    *[!0-9]*)     *[!0123456789]*)
Line 31: Line 34:
{{{ {{{#!highlight bash
Line 34: Line 37:
    '' | *[!0-9]*)
        echo "$0: $var: invalid digit" >&2; exit 1;;
    '' | *[!0123456789]*)
        printf '%s\n' "$0: $var: invalid digit" >&2; exit 1;;
Line 40: Line 43:
{{{ {{{#!highlight bash
Line 45: Line 48:
    .)
        printf 'var is just a dot\n';;
Line 46: Line 51:
        printf '%s has more than one decimal point in it\n' "$var";;
    *[!0-9.]*)
        printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
        printf '"%s" has more than one decimal point in it\n' "$var";;
    *[!0123456789.]*)
        printf '"%s" has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
Line 50: Line 55:
        printf '%s looks like a valid float\n' "$var";;         printf '"%s" looks like a valid float\n' "$var";;
Line 55: Line 60:
{{{ {{{#!highlight bash
Line 59: Line 64:
[[ $var = +([0-9]) ]] [[ $var = +([0123456789]) ]]
Line 63: Line 68:
{{{ {{{#!highlight bash
Line 65: Line 70:
shopt -s extglob shopt -s extglob # not necessary in ksh and bash 4.1 or newer
Line 67: Line 72:
if [[ $foo = @(*[0-9]*|!([+-]|)) && $foo = ?([+-])*([0-9])?(.*([0-9])) ]]; then if [[ $foo = @(*[0123456789]*|!([+-]|)) && $foo = ?([+-])*([0123456789])?(.*([0123456789])) ]]; then
Line 73: Line 78:
If your definition of "a valid number" is even more complex, or if you need a solution that works in legacy Bourne shells, you might prefer to use an external tool's [[RegularExpression|regular expression]] syntax. Here is a portable version (explained in detail [[http://www.wplug.org/wiki/Meeting-20100612#EXERCISE_TWO|here]]), using {{{egrep}}}: If your definition of "a valid number" is even more complex, or if you need a solution that works in legacy Bourne shells, you might prefer to use an external tool's [[RegularExpression|regular expression]] syntax. Here is a portable version (explained in detail [[http://www.wplug.org/wiki/Meeting-20100612#EXERCISE_TWO|here]]), using {{{awk}}} (not `egrep` which is line-based so would be tricked by variables that contain newline characters):
Line 75: Line 80:
{{{ {{{#!highlight bash
Line 77: Line 82:
if echo "$foo" | grep -qE '^[-+]?([0-9]+\.?|[0-9]*\.[0-9]+)$'; then
    echo "'$foo' is a number"

if awk -- 'BEGIN {exit !(ARGV[1] ~ /^[-+]?([0123456789]+\.?|[0123456789]*\.[0123456789]+)$/)}' "$foo"; then
    printf '"%s" is a number\n' "$foo"
Line 80: Line 86:
    echo "'$foo' is not a number"     printf '"%s" is not a number\n' "$foo"
Line 83: Line 89:
Bash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the [[ command. Bash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the `[[...]]` construct.
Line 85: Line 91:
{{{ {{{#!highlight bash
Line 89: Line 95:
regexp='^[-+]?[0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)?$'
if [[ $foo = *[0-9]* && $foo =~ $regexp ]]; then
    echo "'$foo' looks rather like a number"
regexp='^[-+]?[0123456789]*(\.[0123456789]*)?$'
if [[ $foo = *[0123456789]* && $foo =~ $regexp ]]; then
    printf '"%s" looks rather like a number\n' "$foo"
Line 93: Line 99:
    echo "'$foo' doesn't look particularly numeric to me"     printf '"%s" doesn't look particularly numeric to me\n' "$foo"
Line 97: Line 103:
{{{ {{{#!highlight bash
Line 100: Line 106:
 echo "$foo is an integer"     printf '"%s" is an integer\n' "$foo"
Line 103: Line 109:
`[` 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. `[` 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 105: Line 111:
Be careful: the following trick with `printf` (no supported by all shells) 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 107: Line 113:
{{{
# BASH
{{{#!highlight bash
Line 110: Line 115:
  echo "$foo is a float"     printf '"%s" is a float\n' "$foo"
Line 113: 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. 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.

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:

   1 # Bash / Ksh
   2 if [[ -n $foo && $foo != *[!0123456789]* ]]; then
   3     printf '"%s" is strictly numeric\n' "$foo"
   4 else
   5     printf '"%s" has a non-digit somewhere in it or is empty\n' "$foo"
   6 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:

   1 # POSIX
   2 case $var in
   3     '')
   4         printf 'var is empty\n';;
   5     *[!0123456789]*)
   6         printf '%s has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
   7     *)
   8         printf '%s is strictly numeric\n' "$var";;
   9 esac >&2

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

   1 # POSIX
   2 case $var in
   3     '' | *[!0123456789]*)
   4         printf '%s\n' "$0: $var: invalid digit" >&2; exit 1;;
   5 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:

   1 # POSIX
   2 case ${var#[-+]} in   # notice ${var#prefix} substitution to trim sign
   3     '')
   4         printf 'var is empty\n';;
   5     .)
   6         printf 'var is just a dot\n';;
   7     *.*.*)
   8         printf '"%s" has more than one decimal point in it\n' "$var";;
   9     *[!0123456789.]*)
  10         printf '"%s" has a non-digit somewhere in it\n' "$var";;
  11     *)
  12         printf '"%s" looks like a valid float\n' "$var";;
  13 esac >&2

Or in Bash, we can use extended globs:

   1 # Bash -- extended globs must be enabled explicitly in versions prior to 4.1.
   2 # Check whether the variable is all digits.
   3 shopt -s extglob
   4 [[ $var = +([0123456789]) ]]

A more complex case:

   1 # Bash / ksh
   2 shopt -s extglob # not necessary in ksh and bash 4.1 or newer
   3 
   4 if [[ $foo = @(*[0123456789]*|!([+-]|)) && $foo = ?([+-])*([0123456789])?(.*([0123456789])) ]]; then
   5   echo 'foo is a floating-point number'
   6 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):

   1 # Bourne
   2 
   3 if awk -- 'BEGIN {exit !(ARGV[1] ~ /^[-+]?([0123456789]+\.?|[0123456789]*\.[0123456789]+)$/)}' "$foo"; then
   4     printf '"%s" is a number\n' "$foo"
   5 else
   6     printf '"%s" is not a number\n' "$foo"
   7 fi

Bash version 3 and above have regular expression support in the [[...]] construct.

   1 # Bash
   2 # The regexp must be stored in a var and expanded for backward compatibility with versions < 3.2
   3 
   4 regexp='^[-+]?[0123456789]*(\.[0123456789]*)?$'
   5 if [[ $foo = *[0123456789]* && $foo =~ $regexp ]]; then
   6     printf '"%s" looks rather like a number\n' "$foo"
   7 else
   8     printf '"%s" doesn't look particularly numeric to me\n' "$foo"
   9 fi

Using the parsing done by [ and printf (or "using eq")

   1 # fails with ksh
   2 if [ "$foo" -eq "$foo" ] 2>/dev/null; then
   3     printf '"%s" is an integer\n' "$foo"
   4 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)

   1 if printf %f "$foo" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
   2     printf '"%s" is a float\n' "$foo"
   3 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.

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