Re^5: compare two strings and return only he unique values.

I am trying to display unique values from two strings "ABCDE", "BCDEO" to return "AO"

was the OP's request. As a matter of fact my code does exactly what they were asking for. Splitting the two strings into single characters and counting the character's occurrence within the string is how I'd approach it.

Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Professional
Peter -at- Berghold -dot- Net; AOL IM redcowdawg Yahoo IM: blue_cowdawg

Comment on Re^5: compare two strings and return only he unique values.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: compare two strings and return only he unique values. by Kenosis (Priest) on Feb 04, 2013 at 22:21 UTC
Yes--I do understand, and your code works perfectly well for that initial case. Then the OP shows the following case: `my $string1="ABCDE"; my $string2="BBBBB";` [download] Had the OP used `$string2="FFFFF";`, your code would not show "F", even though--after a string comparison--"F" is unique to $string2. I see many good minds working on this issue with different POVs. Again, I think it evidences that the specs are equivocal. BTW - I didn't downvote yours or others' similar interpretation of "unique;" I merely commented on it.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: compare two strings and return only he unique values. by blue_cowdawg (Monsignor) on Feb 05, 2013 at 13:49 UTC
your code would not show "F" Did you actually try the code? I did. Depending on your definition of unique there are ways of tweeking that code so that I show each letter exactly once. Or I could show you the letters that are seen more than once. Or only once. Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Professional Peter -at- Berghold -dot- Net; AOL IM redcowdawg Yahoo IM: blue_cowdawg	[reply]
Re^8: compare two strings and return only he unique values. by Kenosis (Priest) on Feb 05, 2013 at 14:00 UTC
Did you actually try the code? Yes. Depending on your definition of unique... Exactly my point. And our discussion is precisely about the definition. Am quite puzzled by the downvotes in our dialogs' postings...	[reply]