We Keep Coding

Use regex to remove a substring that matches a beginning of a substring through the following comma

I haven't found any helpful Regex tools to help me figure this complicated pattern out.
I have the following string:
Myfirstname Mylastname, Department of Mydepartment, Mytitle, The University of Me; 4-1-1, Hong,Bunk, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan E-mail:my.email#example.jp, Tel:00-00-222-1171, Fax:00-00-225-3386
I am trying to learn enough Regex patterns to remove the substrings one at a time:
E-mail:my.email#example.jp
Tel:00-00-222-1171
Fax:00-00-225-3386
So I think the correct pattern would be to remove a given word (ie., "E-mail", "Tel") all the way through the following comma.
Is type of dynamic pattern possible in Regex?
I am performing the match in Python, however, I don't think that would matter too much.
Also, I know the data string looks comma separated, and it is. However there is no guarantee of preserving the order of those fields. That's why I'm trying to use a Regex match.

How about this regex:
<YOUR_WORD>.*?(?=(,|($)))
Explanation:
It looks for the word specified in <YOUR_WORD> placeholder
It looks for any kind of character afterwards
The search stops when it hits one of the two options:
It finds the character ,
It finds an end of the line
So:
E-mail.*?(?=(,|($)))
Will result in:
E-mail:my.email#example.jp
And
Fax.*?(?=(,|($)))
Will result in:
Fax:00-00-225-3386
If there are edge cases it misses - I would like to know, and whether it affects the performance/ is necessary.

How do I extract definitions from a html file?

I'm trying to practice with regular expressions by extracting function definitions from Python's standard library built-in functions page. What I do have so far is that the definitions are generally printed between <dd><p> and </dd></dl>. When I try
import re
fname = open('functions.html').read()
deflst = re.findall(r'<dd><p>([\D3]+)</dd></dl>', fhand)
it doesn't actually stop at </dd></dl>. This is probably something very silly that I'm missing here, but I've been really having a hard time trying to figure this one out.

Regular expressions are evaluated left to right, in a sense. So in your regular expression,
r'<dd><p>([\D3]+)</dd></dl>'
the regex engine will first look for a <dd><p>, then it will look at each of the following characters in turn, checking each for whether it's a nondigit or 3, and if so, add it to the match. It turns out that all the characters in </dd></dl> are in the class "nondigit or 3", so all of them get added to the portion matched by [\D3]+, and the engine dutifully keeps going. It will only stop when it finds a character that is a digit other than 3, and then go on and "notice" the rest of the regex (the </dd></dl>).
To fix this, you can use the reluctant quantifier like so:
r'<dd><p>([\D3]+?)</dd></dl>'
(note the added ?) which means the regex engine should be conservative in how much it adds to the match. Instead of trying to "gobble" as many characters as possible, it will now try to match the [\D3]+? to just one character and then go on and see if the rest of the regex matches, and if not it will try to match [\D3]+? with just two characters, and so on.
Basically, [\D3]+ matches the longest possible string of [\D3]'s that it can while still letting the full regex match, whereas [\D3]+? matches the shortest possible string of [\D3]'s that it can while still letting the full regex match.
Of course one shouldn't really be using regular expressions to parse HTML in "the real world", but if you just want to practice regular expressions, this is probably as good a text sample as any.

By default all quantifiers are greedy which means they want to match as many characters as possible. You can use ? after quantifier to make it lazy which matches as few characters as possible. \d+? matches at least one digit, but as few as possible.
Try r'<dd><p>([\D3]+?)</dd></dl>'

regex- capturing text between matches

In the following text, I try to match a number followed by ")" and number followed by a period. I am trying to retrieve the text between the matches.
Example:
"1) there is a dsfsdfsd and 2) there is another one and 3) yet another
case"
so I am trying to output: ["there is a dsfsdfsd and", "there is another one and", yet another case"]
I've used this regex: (?:\d)|\d.)
Adding a .* at the end matches the entire string, I only want it to match the words between
also in this string:
"we will give 4. there needs to be another option and 6.99 USD is a
bit amount"
I want to only match the 4. and not the 6.99
Any pointers will be appreciated. Thank you. r

tldr
Regular expressions are tricky beasts and you should avoid them if at all possible.
If you can't avoid them, then make sure you have lots of test cases for all the edge cases that can occur.
Build up your regular expression slowly and systematically, testing your assumptions at every step.
If this code will go intro production, then please write unit tests that explain the thinking process to the poor soul who has to maintain it one day
The long version
Regular expressions are finicky. Your best approach may be to solve the problem a different way.
For example, your language might have a library function that allows you to split up strings using a regular expression to define what comes between the numbers. That will let you get away with writing a simpler regex to match the numbers and brackets/dots.
If you still decide to use regular expressions, then you need to be very structured about how you build up your regular expressions. It's extremely easy to miss edge cases.
So let's break this down piece by piece...
Set up a test environment for quickly experimenting with your regex.
There are lots of options here, depending on your programming language and OS. Ones I sometimes use are:
a Powershell window for testing .Net regexes (NB: the cli gives you a history of past attempts, so you can go back a few steps if you mess things up too badly)
a Python console for testing Python regexes (which are slightly different to .Net regexes in their syntax for named capture groups).
an html page with JavaScript to test the regex
an online or desktop regex tool (I still use the ancient Regular Expression Workbench from Eric Gunnerson, but I'm sure there are better alternatives these days)
Since you didn't specify a language or regex version, I'll assume .Net regular expressions
Create a single test string for testing a wider variety of options.
Your goal is to include as many edge cases as you can think of. Here's what I would use: "ab 1. there is a dsfsdfsd costing $6.99 and 2) there is another one and 3. yet another case 4)5) 6)10."
Note that I've added a few extra cases you didn't mention:
empty strings between two round bracket numbers: "4)" and "5)"
white space string between two round bracket numbers: "5)" and "6)"
empty strings between a round bracket number and a dotted number: "6)" and "10."
empty string after the dotted number "10." at the end of the string
random text and empty space, which should be ignored, before the first number
I'm going to make a few assumptions here, which you will need to vary based on your actual requirements:
You DO want to capture the white space after the dot or round bracket.
You DO want to capture the white space before the next dotted number or round bracket number.
You might have numbers that go beyond 9, so I've included "10" in the test cases.
You want to capture empty strings at the end e.g. after the "10."
NOTES:
Thinking through this test case forces you to be more rigorous about your requirements.
It will also help you be more efficient while you are manually testing your regular expression.
HOWEVER, this is assuming you aren't following a TDD approach. If you are, then you should probably do things a little differently... create unit tests for each scenario separately and get the regex working incrementally.
This test string doesn't cover all cases. For example, there are no newline or tab characters in the test string. Also it can't test for an empty string following a round bracket number at the very end.
First get a regex working that just captures the round brackets and dotted brackets.
Don't worry about the $6.99 edge case yet.
Drop the "(?:" non-capturing group syntax from your regex for now: "\d)|\d."
This doesn't even parse, because you have an unescaped round bracket.
The revised string is "\d\)|\d.", which parses, but which also matches "99" which you probably weren't expecting. That's because you forgot to escape the "."
The revised string is "\d\)|\d\.". This no longer matches "99", but it now matches "0." at the end instead of "10.". That's because it assumes that numbers will be single digit only.
The following string seems to work: "\d+\)|\d+\."
Time to deal with that pesky "$6.99" now...
Modify the regex so that it doesn't capture a floating point number.
You need to use a negative look ahead pattern to prevent a digit being after the decimal point.
Result: "\d+\)|\d+\.(?!\d)"
Count how many matches this produces. You're going to use this number for checking later results.
Hint: Save the regex pattern somewhere. You want to be able to go back to it any time you mess up your regex pattern beyond repair.
If you found a string splitting function, then you should use it now and avoid the complexity that follows. [I've included an example of this at the end.]
Simple is better, but I'm going to continue with the longer solution in the interests of showing an approach to staying in control of regex'es that start getting horribly complicated
Decide how to exclude that pattern
You used the non-capture group pattern in your question i.e. "(?:"
That approach can work. But it's a bit cumbersome, because you need to have a capturing group after it that you will look for instead.
It would be much nicer if your entire pattern matched what you are looking for.
So wrap the number pattern inside a zero-width positive look behind pattern (if your language supports it) i.e. "(?<=".
This checks for the pattern, but doesn't include it in what gets captured.
So now your regex looks like this: "(?<=\d+\)|\d+\.(?!\d))"
Test it!
It might seem silly to test this on its own - all the matches are empty strings.
Do it anyway. You want to sanity check every step of the way.
Make sure that it still produces the same number of matches as in step 4.
Decide how to match the text in between the numbers.
You rightly mention that ".*" will match the entire string, not just the parts in between.
There's a neat trick that allows you to reuse the pattern from step 5 to get the text in between.
Start by just matching the next character
The trick is that you want to match any character unless it's the start of the next number
That sounds like a negative look ahead pattern again: "(?!"
Let X be the pattern you saved in step 4. Matching a single character will look like this: "(?!X)."
You want to match lots of those characters. So put that pattern into a non-capturing group and repeat it: "(?:(?!X).)*"
This assumes you want to capture empty text.
If you're not, then change the "*" to a "+".
Hint: This is such a common pattern that you will want to reuse it in future pasting in different patterns in place of X
I used a non-capturing group instead of a normal group so that you can also embed this pattern in regexes where you do care about the capturing groups
Resulting pattern: "(?:(?!\d+\)|\d+\.(?!\d)).)*"
I suggest testing this pattern on its own to see what it does
Now put parts 5 and 7 together: "(?<=\d+\)|\d+\.(?!\d))(?:(?!\d+\)|\d+\.(?!\d)).)*"
Test it!
Unit tests!
If this is going into production, then please write lots of unit tests that will explain each step of this thought process
Have pity on the poor soul who has to maintain your regex in future!
By rights that person should be you
I suggest putting a note in your calendar to return to this code in 6 months' time and make sure you can still understand it from the unit tests alone!
Refactor
In six months' time, if you can't understand the code any more, use your newfound insight (and incentive) to solve the problem without using regular expressions (or only very simple ones)
Addendum
As an example of using a string splitting function to get away with a simpler regex, here's a solution in Powershell:
$string = 'ab 1. there is a dsfsdfsd costing $6.99 and 2) there is another one and 3. yet another case 4)5) 6)10.'
$pattern = [regex] '\d+\)|\d+\.(?!\d)'
$string -split $pattern | select-object -skip 1

Judging by the task you have, it might be easier to match the delimiters and use re.split (as also pointed out by bobblebubble in the comments).
I dsuggest a mere
\d+[.)]\B\s*
See it in action (demo)
It matches 1 or more digits, then a . or a ), then it makes sure there is no word letter (digit, letter or underscore) after it and then matches zero or more whitespace.
Python demo:
import re
rx = r'\d+[.)]\B\s*'
test_str = "1) there is a dsfsdfsd and 2) there is another one and 3) yet another case\n\"we will give 4. there needs to be another option and 6.99 USD is a bit amount"
print([x for x in re.split(rx,test_str) if x])

Try the following regex with the g modifier:
([A-Za-z\s\-_]+|\d(?!(\)|\.)\D)|\.\d)
Example: https://regex101.com/r/kB1xI0/3
[A-Za-z\s\-_]+ automatically matches all alphabetical characters + whitespace
\d(?!(\)|\.)\D) match any numeric sequence of digits not followed by a closing parenthesis ) or decimal value (.99)
\.\d match any period followed by numeric digit.

I used this pattern:
(?<=\d.\s)(.*?)(?=\d.\s)
demo
This looks for the contents between any digit, any character, then a space.
Edit: Updated pattern to handle the currency issue and line ends better:
This is with flag 'g'
(?<=[0-9].\s)(.*?)(?=\s[0-9].\s|\n|\r)
Demo 2

import re
s = "1) there is a dsfsdfsd and 2) there is another one and 3) yet another case"
s1 = "we will give 4. there needs to be another option and 6.99 USD is a bit amount"
regex = re.compile("\d\)\s.*?|\s\d\.\D.*?")
print ([x for x in regex.split(s) if x])
print regex.split(s1)
Output:
['there is a dsfsdfsd and ', 'there is another one and ', 'yet another case']
['we will give', 'there needs to be another option and 6.99 USD is a bit amount']

regex to dictionary using group label ?P<>

I'm using the regex module instead of default re module in python
https://code.google.com/p/mrab-regex-hg/wiki/GeneralDetails
I'm trying to do the following
>>> regex.compile('(?P<heavy>heavily|heavy)').search("My laptop is heavy or heavily").groupdict()
{'heavy': 'heavy'}
I expect it returns
{'heavy': ['heavy','heavily]}
regex.findall will match both heavy and heavily, but it doesn't work with group label
I have to solve it with regex, so iterative through string solutions are not acceptable.

[Have you read the python documents on regexes?][1]
Relevant portion:
As the target string is scanned, REs separated by '|' are tried from left to right. When one pattern completely matches, that branch is accepted. This means that once A matches, B will not be tested further, even if it would produce a longer overall match.
This means that your regex:
(?P<heavy>heavily|heavy)
Will find the first matching string, which is "heavy", and save that string. It then says "congrats, I'm done!" and finishes scanning.
You need a regex that will capture both strings.
It then saves that string, heavy, into a group (as your regex requests) also called heavy. Your group dict command then returns this information. So you have a group named heavy with one regex match, also heavy, which gives you the return result of
{"heavy": "heavy"}
To resolve your issue, there are two solutions.
Use the regex findall method, which will return a list, and then you can turn this list into a dictionary. This is the easier route.
Craft a regex that will actually find both terms and place them into the same group. While doable, this is very convoluted.
I highly recommend you use the findall method instead, if you wish to search for multiple matches.

Python regex: how to match anything up to a specific string and avoid backtraking when failin

I'm trying to craft a regex able to match anything up to a specific pattern. The regex then will continue looking for other patterns until the end of the string, but in some cases the pattern will not be present and the match will fail. Right now I'm stuck at:
.*?PATTERN
The problem is that, in cases where the string is not present, this takes too much time due to backtraking. In order to shorten this, I tried mimicking atomic grouping using positive lookahead as explained in this thread (btw, I'm using re module in python-2.7):
Do Python regular expressions have an equivalent to Ruby's atomic grouping?
So I wrote:
(?=(?P<aux1>.*?))(?P=aux1)PATTERN
Of course, this is faster than the previous version when STRING is not present but trouble is, it doesn't match STRING anymore as the . matches everyhing to the end of the string and the previous states are discarded after the lookahead.
So the question is, is there a way to do a match like .*?STRING and alse be able to fail faster when the match is not present?

You could try using split
If the results are of length 1 you got no match. If you get two or more you know that the first one is the first match. If you limit the split to size one you'll short-circuit the later matching:
"HI THERE THEO".split("TH", 1) # ['HI ', 'ERE THEO']
The first element of the results is up to the match.

One-Regex Solution
^(?=(?P<aux1>(?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))*))(?P=aux1)PATTERN
Explanation
You wanted to use the atomic grouping like this: (?>.*?)PATTERN, right? This won't work. Problem is, you can't use lazy quantifiers at the end of an atomic grouping: the definition of the AG is that once you're outside of it, the regex won't backtrack inside.
So the regex engine will match the .*?, because of the laziness it will step outside of the group to check if the next character is a P, and if it's not it won't be able to backtrack inside the group to match that next character inside the .*.
What's usually used in Perl are structures like this: (?>(?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))*)PATTERN. That way, the equivalent of .* (here (?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))) won't "eat up" the wanted pattern.
This pattern is easier to read in my opinion with possessive quantifiers, which are made just for these occasions: (?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))*+PATTERN.
Translated with your workaround, this would lead to the above regex (added ^ since you should anchor the regex, either to the start of the string or to another regex).

The Python documentation includes a brief outline of the differences between the re.search() and re.match() functions http://docs.python.org/2/library/re.html#search-vs-match. In particular, the following quote is relevant:
Sometimes you’ll be tempted to keep using re.match(), and just add .* to the front of your RE. Resist this temptation and use re.search() instead. The regular expression compiler does some analysis of REs in order to speed up the process of looking for a match. One such analysis figures out what the first character of a match must be; for example, a pattern starting with Crow must match starting with a 'C'. The analysis lets the engine quickly scan through the string looking for the starting character, only trying the full match if a 'C' is found.
Adding .* defeats this optimization, requiring scanning to the end of the string and then backtracking to find a match for the rest of the RE. Use re.search() instead.
In your case, it would be preferable to define your pattern simply as:
pattern = re.compile("PATTERN")
And then call pattern.search(...), which will not backtrack when the pattern is not found.