Re: FAQ and string functions

[Oleg Goodyckov <og@videoproject.kiev.ua>]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:50:38PM +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >me it is more effectively to process only correct data (which are reliably
> >recognized) and any other simply to drop nuffig.
> 
> Ah, that practice, which makes HTML a disaster because browsers
> silently ignore what they do not understand. The results are known.

Seems, you don't like this "known" result? Why?

> The problem of all global methods is that the parameters they need
> cannot be optimal in a  large context. Split is an example. It
> requires a separator and a notion of a token which may vary from point
> to point, making the approach useless.

Baseless assertions. Again.

> I remember a project with a config file of ~2MBytes big. (it was a
> Windows registry folder). I wonder how much time it would take to
> parse it using split technique.

Why you've took so nasty example? 

> >> that as the complexity of syntax increases it becomes almost impossible at 
> >> some point to write a correct pattern and prove that it is correct.
> >
> >Which nuffig "complexity of syntax"? Syntax is - no more simplest: fields
> >with separators (of one type) between of them.
> 
> It is not a real syntax.

It is what I try to tell.

> >Take record, split it by separators and enjoy.
> 
> Well, how long a record is allowed to be?

It is no need in such constrain. Any.

> >Really? Empty words. Try and show me. In skipped example I've seen one
> >attempt. Show me another - better.
> >Task solved in skipped example has name - building hystorgram of words
> >implementation. Why you name this task not realistic?
> 
> Because histogram is also a global method (used for I suppose sort of
> clustering) which also has great limitations and is by no means an end
> product of the program.

Ok. It is answer on my second question (not very impressive, BTW). Now how 
about first - about better realization of task?

> >So, if that 80% of code throw out, then program will work? Or they are
> >necessary though?
> 
> Not for text processing. I supposed that it does something more than
> only that.
> 
> Generally, if you have a problem to solve you must first decompose it
> into subproblems. You should do it properly. Surely one could use
> eigenvalues and vectors to invert a matrix but this would be a *bad*
> idea. To decompose some text analysing problem into a bunch of split
> operations as also a *bad* idea. This is my point.

Baseless point. Exorcisms.