in reply to Re: Re: VarStructor II -- Abbreviation tool
in thread VarStructor II -- Abbreviation tool

It's not clear to me why you have the lines
Line one Line two Line five
reduce to
L1 L2 L3
but the lines
Lines end here not Lines end here Lines end here too
reduce to
Line_o Line_t Line_f
I mean, I understand that the latter are treated differently because they're identical within the Max_Length span, whereas the shorter ones aren't. But still... why should that matter? Wouldn't it have been acceptable -- aye, preferable -- to have the latter reduce to (e.g.)
L4 L5 L6

???

Thanks,
jdporter

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: VarStructor II -- Abbreviation tool
by Wassercrats (Initiate) on Jun 02, 2004 at 15:17 UTC
    You got the output example backwards.

    Line one
    Line two
    Line five

    reduces to:

    Line_o
    Line_t
    Line_f

    and:

    Lines end here not
    Lines end here
    Lines end here too

    reduces to:

    L1
    L2
    L3

    The script is intended to create the shortest possible unique string, with a given maximum number of characters from the beginning of the string. When two strings are identical, a number must be appended and since the text is of no use in distinguishing those strings, and the shortest possible unique string contains just one (actually, zero) characters, that's how many characters are kept.

    Whether sticking to that produces the most useful function is another issue, but it does produce the shortest string and puts value on the inclusion of text when the text isn't identical.

    I will be adding an option to have identical text that's appended with a number contain the maximum number of characters instead of just one.

      You got the output example backwards.
      So I did. Ack! But you got the jist of my question.
      Whether sticking to that produces the most useful function is another issue, but it does produce the shortest string and puts value on the inclusion of text when the text isn't identical.

      Ah. Interesting. It sounds like there is essentially a trade-off to be made, between shortest possible and inclusion of meaningful text. I guess I would tend to weight the latter more heavily than you did. Either that, or not at all, which is (I believe) what Text::Abbrev does.

      Here's my solution which gives absolute priority to inclusion of meaningful text. It doesn't maximize compression of strings such as xxxxxxxxxx the way yours does, but I'm viewing those as unlikely input. For "meaningful" text such as Four score..., the results are satisfactory (IMHO).

      my @values = <DATA>; print "\nValues:\n", @values; chomp @values; sub max_len { my $len = -1; for ( @_ ) { $len < length $_ and $len = length $_; } $len } sub min { $_[0] < $_[1] ? $_[0] : $_[1] } my $max_length = min( 10, max_len(@values) ); # normally, we only want to allow valid ID characters: my @idents = map { s/\W+/_/g; $_ } @values; print "\nIdentifiers (raw):\n", map "$_\n", @idents; print "\n\n\n\n"; my %mapping; # contains the final result { # this is the part that does the real work: my %h; for ( @idents ) { push @{ $h{ substr $_, 0, $max_length } }, $_; } for ( keys %h ) { my $n = @{ $h{$_} }; my $n_width = length $n; if ( $n == 1 ) { $mapping{$_} = $h{$_}[0]; } else { my $prefix = substr $_, 0, $max_length - $n_width; my $oneup; for ( @{ $h{$_} } ) { my $k; do { $k = $prefix . sprintf '%0'.$n_width.'d', ++$oneup; } while exists $mapping{$k}; $mapping{$k} = $_; } } } } # end of main algorithm. for ( sort keys %mapping ) { print "$_ => '$mapping{$_}'\n"; } __DATA__ line one line two lines end here not lines end here too yyyyyyy yyyyyyy xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz r r rr rr r1 r1 r12 r12 Four score and seven years ago, our fathers... Four score and seven years ago, our mothers... Four score and seven years ago, our brothers...