Talk:Tokenize a string with escaping: Difference between revisions
Talk:Tokenize a string with escaping (view source)
Revision as of 20:12, 12 January 2017
, 7 years ago→The alternative Haskell solution needs attention
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 15:
: Thanks, your point about efficiency at scale is interesting and well taken. This task doesn't specify performance at scale, and I think it can be useful to also show the 'simplest' (or most naive :-) single fold solution, but I appreciate your having documented the issue. Very happy to remove for the moment and experiment. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 09:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:: Have now experimented, and agree with [[User:Samsergey|Samsergey]] :-) Let's remove it – once you make it more efficient at scale, it converges on the first solution, and needs the double reverse. Useful exercise for me – many thanks for your response ! [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 11:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
::: On second thoughts, I notice that it appears, (tested with a 180k string), to be fractionally/trivially faster than the original DFA draft, so perhaps worth keeping, at least for the moment, for comparison/discussion [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:::: Let a hundred flowers blossom :) We like Haskell for expressiveness, flexibility and freedom to be either experimentators or nudniks which it offers.
::::: Thank you for your helpful thoughts, invariably excellent code, and even forbearance with nudniks :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
::::: (Of course, thinking back to an earlier life only 1hr behind Kamchatka, I do remember that Mao's patience with the blooming of 100 flowers was not to prove inexhaustible... :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
| |||