Talk:Tokenize a string with escaping: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Tokenize a string with escaping (view source)

Revision as of 20:12, 12 January 2017

595 bytes added , 7 years ago

→‎The alternative Haskell solution needs attention

Hout

9,655

edits

Revision as of 14:23, 12 January 2017 (view source) Hout (talk \| contribs) (→‎Perhaps worth keeping in that it is fractionally faster that the first DFA example, and shows a slightly different approach/idiom) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 20:12, 12 January 2017 (view source) Hout (talk \| contribs) (→‎The alternative Haskell solution needs attention)
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 17: :: 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)