How can I match a quote-delimited string with a regex?

You should use number one, because number two is bad practice. Consider that the developer who comes after you wants to match strings that are followed by an exclamation point. Should he use:

"[^"]*"!

or:

".*?"!

The difference appears when you have the subject:

"one" "two"!

The first regex matches:

"two"!

while the second regex matches:

"one" "two"!

Always be as specific as you can. Use the negated character class when you can.

Another difference is that [^"]* can span across lines, while .* doesn't unless you use single line mode. [^"\n]* excludes the line breaks too.

As for backtracking, the second regex backtracks for each and every character in every string that it matches. If the closing quote is missing, both regexes will backtrack through the entire file. Only the order in which then backtrack is different. Thus, in theory, the first regex is faster. In practice, you won't notice the difference.

I would suggest:

([\"'])(?:\\\1|.)*?\1

But only because it handles escaped quote chars and allows both the ' and " to be the quote char. I would also suggest looking at this article that goes into this problem in depth:

http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/match-quoted-string

However, unless you have a serious performance issue or cannot be sure of embedded quotes, go with the simpler and more readable:

/".*?"/

I must admit that non-greedy patterns are not the basic Unix-style 'ed' regular expression, but they are getting pretty common. I still am not used to group operators like (?:stuff).

I'd say the second one is better, because it fails faster when the terminating " is missing. The first one will backtrack over the string, a potentially expensive operation. An alternative regexp if you are using perl 5.10 would be /"[^"]++"/. It conveys the same meaning as version 1 does, but is as fast as version two.

I'd go for number two since it's much easier to read. But I'd still like to match empty strings so I would use:

/".*?"/

From a performance perspective (extremely heavy, long-running loop over long strings), I could imagine that

"[^"]*"

is faster than

".*?"

because the latter would do an additional check for each step: peeking at the next character. The former would be able to mindlessly roll over the string.

As I said, in real-world scenarios this would hardly be noticeable. Therefore I would go with number two (if my current regex flavor supports it, that is) because it is much more readable. Otherwise with number one, of course.

Using the negated character class prevents matching when the boundary character (doublequotes, in your example) is present elsewhere in the input.

Your example #1:

/"[^"]+"/ # match quote, then everything that's not a quote, then a quote

matches only the smallest pair of matched quotes -- excellent, and most of the time that's all you'll need. However, if you have nested quotes, and you're interested in the largest pair of matched quotes (or in all the matched quotes), you're in a much more complicated situation.

Luckily Damian Conway is ready with the rescue: Text::Balanced is there for you, if you find that there are multiple matched quote marks. It also has the virtue of matching other paired punctuation, e.g. parentheses.

I prefer the first regex, but it's certainly a matter of taste.

The first one might be more efficient?

Search for double-quote
add double-quote to group
for each char:
    if double-quote:
        break
    add to group
add double-quote to group

Vs something a bit more complicated involving back-tracking?

Considering that I didn't even know about the "*?" thing until today, and I've been using regular expressions for 20+ years, I'd vote in favour of the first. It certainly makes it clear what you're trying to do - you're trying to match a string that doesn't include quotes.