On 03/08/2012 11:03 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Thomas: > > It seems to me that we do not need both testDropBy and testDropBy2. > > I initially created testDropBy2 as a way to work through the "Original" and > "Modified" examples from the site. > > So unless you think we need both, let get rid of testDropBy. > > Thoughts?
yes, definitely, the two should be merged. I worked through all deviations, and I think our implementation is correct (wrt the algorithm description, which may be wrong too). I have not found the original paper, which is a pity, and all the algorithm descriptions I have found so far vary a bit. But in the end, it's a phonetic code to match similar names and when I compare to dropby, I feel more comfortable with our implementation (e.g. take PHIL and FIL which result in FFAL and FAL in dropby, which is weird). Anyway, the modified version seems to address some of these things, so it may be a good idea to additionally implement this one. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
