Indeed! It’s possible using forward references:
(?=\()(?:(?=.*?\((?!.*?\1)(.*\)(?!.*\2).*))(?=.*?\)(?!.*?\2)(.*)).)+?.*?(?=\1)[^(]*(?=\2$)
Et voila; there it is. That right there matches a full group of nested parentheses from start to end. Two substrings per match are necessarily captured and saved; these are useless to you. Just focus on the results of the main match.
No, there is no limit on depth. No, there are no recursive constructs hidden in there. Just plain ol’ lookarounds, with a splash of forward referencing. If your flavour does not support forward references (I’m looking at you, JavaScript), then I’m sorry. I really am. I wish I could help you, but I’m not a freakin’ miracle worker.
That’s great and all, but I want to match inner groups too!
OK, here’s the deal. The reason we were able to match those outer groups is because they are non-overlapping. As soon as the matches we desire begin to overlap, we must tweak our strategy somewhat. We can still inspect the subject for correctly-balanced groups of parentheses. However, instead of outright matching them, we need to save them with a capturing group like so:
(?=\()(?=((?:(?=.*?\((?!.*?\2)(.*\)(?!.*\3).*))(?=.*?\)(?!.*?\3)(.*)).)+?.*?(?=\2)[^(]*(?=\3$)))
Exactly the same as the previous expression, except I’ve wrapped the bulk of it in a lookahead to avoid consuming characters, added a capturing group, and tweaked the backreference indices so they play nice with their new friend. Now the expression matches at the position just before the next parenthetical group, and the substring of interest is saved as \1.
So… how the hell does this actually work?
I’m glad you asked. The general method is quite simple: iterate through characters one at a time while simultaneously matching the next occurrences of ‘(‘ and ‘)’, capturing the rest of the string in each case so as to establish positions from which to resume searching in the next iteration. Let me break it down piece by piece:
| Note | Component | Description |
|---|---|---|
(?=\() |
Make sure ‘(‘ follows before doing any hard work. | |
(?: |
Start of group used to iterate through the string, so the following lookaheads match repeatedly. | |
| Handle ‘(‘ | (?= |
This lookahead deals with finding the next ‘(‘. |
.*?\((?!.*?\1) |
Match up until the next ‘(‘ that is not followed by \1. Below, you’ll see that \1 is filled with the entire part of the string following the last ‘(‘ matched. So (?!.*?\1) ensures we don’t match the same ‘(‘ again |
|
(.*\)(?!.*\2).*) |
Fill \1 with the rest of the string. At the same time, check that there is at least another occurrence of ‘)’. This is a PCRE band-aid to overcome a bug with capturing groups in lookaheads. |
|
) |
||
| Handle ‘)’ | (?= |
This lookahead deals with finding the next ‘)’ |
.*?\)(?!.*?\2) |
Match up until the next ‘)’ that is not followed by \2. Like the earlier ‘(‘ match, this forces matching of a ‘)’ that hasn’t been matched before. |
|
(.*) |
Fill \2 with the rest of the string. The above.mentioned bug is not applicable here, so a simple expression is sufficient. | |
) |
||
. |
Consume a single character so that the group can continue matching. It is safe to consume a character because neither occurrence of the next ‘(‘ or ‘)’ could possibly exist before the new matching point. | |
)+? |
Match as few times as possible until a balanced group has been found. This is validated by the following check | |
| Final validation | .*?(?=\1) |
Match up to and including the last ‘(‘ found. |
[^(]*(?=\2$) |
Then match up until the position where the last ‘)’ was found, making sure we don’t encounter another ‘(‘ along the way (which would imply an unbalanced group). |
Conclusion
So, there you have it. A way to match balanced nested structures using forward references coupled with standard (extended) regular expression features – no recursion or balanced groups. It’s not efficient, and it certainly isn’t pretty, but it is possible. And it’s never been done before. That, to me, is quite exciting.
I know a lot of you use regular expressions to accomplish and help other users accomplish simpler and more practical tasks, but if there is anyone out there who shares my excitement for pushing the limits of possibility with regular expressions then I’d love to hear from you. If there is interest, I have other similar material to post.