Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by vermicul » Mon, 09 May 2005 09:23:35


"Xah Lee" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


What is so hard to understand ?
Should be perfectly clear even to a first year undergraduate.

As for "greedy" even a minimal exposure to Djikstra's shortest path
algorithm would have made the concept intuitive. And from memory,
that is the sort of thing done in Computing 101 and in Data Structures and
Algorithms 101

It seems to me that you want the Python doc to be written for morons.
And that is not a valid complaint.
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by Ms Rullg » Mon, 09 May 2005 09:35:12

vermicule < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


[...]


Not for morons, but for trolls. Don't feed them.

--
Ms Rullgd
XXXX@XXXXX.COM

 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by alex goldm » Tue, 10 May 2005 03:53:10


He's right actually. If we understand the term "greedy" as it's used in
graph search and optimization algorithms, Python's RE matching actually IS
greedy.
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by Sean Burk » Wed, 11 May 2005 07:43:37


alex goldman < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:



No, you're just confused about the optimization metric.
In regexes, "greedy" match optimizes for the longest match,
not the fastest.

And this is common regex terminology - man perlre and you will
find discussion of "greedy" vs. "stingy" matching.

-SEan
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by alex goldm » Wed, 11 May 2005 20:58:48


Read what you quoted again. Everyone (Xah, vermicule, myself) was talking
about "greedy" as it's used in graph search and optimization algorithms.
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by alex goldm » Wed, 11 May 2005 22:52:18


I replied to "And from memory, that is the sort of thing done in Computing
101 and in Data Structures and Algorithms 101", and I fully explained what
I meant by "greedy" as well. There was no ambiguity.
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by Lawrence K » Wed, 11 May 2005 23:07:12


...


However the original quote was in the context of regular expressions, so
discussion of the terminology used in regular expressions is far more
relevant than the terminology used in graph search and optimisation
algorithms.

Lawrence
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by Lawrence K » Thu, 12 May 2005 02:46:33


...


My response talks about relevance, not ambiguity.

Lawrence
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by alex goldm » Thu, 12 May 2005 03:02:19


Well, your response was irrelevant.
 
 
 

Language documentation ( was Computing Industry shams)

Post by Keith Thom » Thu, 12 May 2005 03:58:34

alex goldman < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

[snip]

This entire discussion is irrelevant to most, if not all, of the
newsgroups to which it's being posted. comp.lang.c, where I'm reading
this, is for discussion of the C programming language; I see nothing
about C.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) XXXX@XXXXX.COM < http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> < http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.