I need to implement something like my own file system. One operation would be the FindFirstFile. I need to check, if the caller passed something like ., sample*.cpp
There are quite a few such functions around. Here's a directory of various implementations, sorted into recursive and non-recursive, etc.
In case you don't like the licensing there (or have trouble with the link, etc.) here's one possible implementation of a matching algorithm that at least closely approximates what Windows uses:
#include
#include
bool match(char const *needle, char const *haystack) {
for (; *needle != '\0'; ++needle) {
switch (*needle) {
case '?':
if (*haystack == '\0')
return false;
++haystack;
break;
case '*': {
if (needle[1] == '\0')
return true;
size_t max = strlen(haystack);
for (size_t i = 0; i < max; i++)
if (match(needle + 1, haystack + i))
return true;
return false;
}
default:
if (*haystack != *needle)
return false;
++haystack;
}
}
return *haystack == '\0';
}
#ifdef TEST
#define CATCH_CONFIG_MAIN
#include "catch.hpp"
TEST_CASE("Matching", "[match]") {
REQUIRE(match("a", "a") == true);
REQUIRE(match("a", "b") == false);
REQUIRE(match("a*", "a") == true);
REQUIRE(match("a?", "a") == false);
REQUIRE(match("a?", "ab") == true);
REQUIRE(match("a*b", "ab") == true);
REQUIRE(match("a*b", "acb") == true);
REQUIRE(match("a*b", "abc") == false);
REQUIRE(match("*a*??????a?????????a???????????????",
"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa") == true);
}
#endif
Since there was a discussion of complexity of some of the other answers, I'll note that I believe this has O(NM) complexity and O(M) storage use (where N is the size of the target string, and M is the size of the pattern).
With @masterxilo's test pair:
"*a*??????*a*?????????a???????????????", "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
...this finds a match in approximately 3 microseconds on my machine. That is a lot slower than a typical pattern--most of my other tests run in about 300 nanoseconds or so on this particular machine.
At the same time, @masterxilo's code takes approximately 11 microseconds to run on the same machine, so this is still around 3 to 4 times faster (not to mention being somewhat smaller and simpler).