On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
say we start with this number
123,456,789
one hundred twenty-three million four hundred fifty-six thousand seven hundred
eighty-nine
satakaksikymmentäkolme miljoonaa neljäsataaviisikymmentäkuusi tuhatta
I have an idea. Send that japanese to Larry and have him translate it.
However he translates it, it's official.
p
Jeff Okamoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
say we start with this number
123,456,789
one hundred
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
generally speaking when you look a number and convert it into text you go through
some simble steps
say we start with this number
123,456,789
...
then we convert to words
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
But, but... 0.21 is *not* 'point twenty one', it's 'point two one',
otherwise you get into weirdness with: .21 and .210 being spoken as
'point twenty one' and 'point two hundred (?:and)? ten' and all of a
sudden the '2' in that figure has gained an
David Grove wrote:
Ok, let's be pedantic.
Everyone is pedantic. And they're all *right*.
The one thing that I learned in high school speech class was that, if you
say it, and people understand you, it's correct. It may not be proper, but
it's correct, because it serves its purpose.
"Bryan C. Warnock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
But, but... 0.21 is *not* 'point twenty one', it's 'point two one',
otherwise you get into weirdness with: .21 and .210 being spoken as
'point twenty one' and 'point two hundred (?:and)? ten' and all
generally speaking when you look a number and convert it into text you go through
some simble steps
say we start with this number
123,456,789
first we divide into sets of three
(123,000,000)+(456,000)+(789)
then we expand
(123*1,000,000) + (456*1,000)+(789)
and expand further
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
generally speaking when you look a number and convert it into text you go through
some simble steps
say we start with this number
123,456,789
first we divide into sets of three
(123,000,000)+(456,000)+(789)
then we expand
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, "David L. Nicol"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not know exactly what the perl5 default sort heuristic is,
aside that it tries to DWIM
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:28:26AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
And for 'proper' library type sorting (assuming all works are in
English) we should really be doing something like:
require Lingua::EN::Numbers;
s/(\d+(?:\.\d+))/Lingua::EN::Numbers-($1)-get_string/eg;
since in a
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:28:26AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
And for 'proper' library type sorting (assuming all works are in
English) we should really be doing something like:
require Lingua::EN::Numbers;
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, "David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do not know exactly what the perl5 default sort heuristic is,
aside that it tries to DWIM both numeric and string data.
There is
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 04:31:42PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
(1) Quicksort has a weak point where it goes deep into the Quadratic Land:
(nearly) already ordered data. No, that is not so far-fetched a case.
Mergesort has no similar weakpoints: its performance is in fact
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
"sort heuristic"? "DWIM both numeric and string data"? There is
no "heuristic". There is no "DWIM". Perl's sort() does by default
string sort based on the byte values of the strings of its argument
list. That's it. Period. Full stop.
Oh.
$ perl -le
Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, "David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do not know exactly what the perl5 default sort heuristic is, aside that
it tries to DWIM both numeric and string data.
There is no heuristic, the default is simply $a cmp $b, so I
"JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JSD On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 04:31:42PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
(1) Quicksort has a weak point where it goes deep into the Quadratic Land:
(nearly) already ordered data. No, that is not so far-fetched a case.
Mergesort
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 11:47:59PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
The sorting algorithm? Before 5.005 (I think...my memory is going)
vendors' quicksort, after that Tom Horsley's excellent ultratuned
quicksort (since vendors' quicksorts were (a) buggy (c) slow),
in 5.7 mergesort by John
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 02:04:25PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 11:47:59PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
The sorting algorithm? Before 5.005 (I think...my memory is going)
vendors' quicksort, after that Tom Horsley's excellent ultratuned
quicksort (since
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes) writes:
$srt =~ tr/0-9a-z\xe9/a-jA-ZE/; # uc sort nums after letters
`10' is going to sort before `2' with that rule. Having done the whole
bitter
Piers Cawley wrote:
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After reading Cawley's
method, I wondered if using it we could make radix-sorts the
default sort method.
Er... the point behind changing numbers to binary strings was
emphatically not so that they could be sorted by a
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, David L. Nicol wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After reading Cawley's
method, I wondered if using it we could make radix-sorts the
default sort method.
Er... the point behind changing numbers to
Nathan Torkington wrote:
By "pluggable" you mean that sort() should be overridable?
use D::Oh s s\?s.s;
--
John Porter
What would Gabrielle do?
At 03:43 PM 12/28/00 -0500, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
use sort qw(radix_sort);
sort \radix_sort @data;
Isn't that the slot where the comparison function goes?
Maybe something more like this:
use sort::radix_sort;
sort @data; # magically uses radix_sort instead of
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
If someone wants to play with such ideas there's Perl 5.7 which has a
new mergesort as the incore sorting algorithm, while Perl 5.6 and before
used quicksort.
I'm triggering on the word "incore" there...
I seem to recall someone suggested on perl6-language a while
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 06:36:56PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
Is there a perl6 sort committee yet? AFter reading Cawley's
method here, I wonder if using it we could make radix-sorts the
default sort method.
Radix sorts are great if the data cooperates, radix sorts can really
fly in such
At 06:36 PM 12/27/00 -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
Is there a perl6 sort committee yet? AFter reading Cawley's
method here, I wonder if using it we could make radix-sorts the
default sort method.
I don't see any reason to not allow this--perhaps a lexically scoped
assignment to
Dan Sugalski wrote:
use sort qw(radix_sort);
sort \radix_sort @data;
Isn't that the slot where the comparison function goes?
Maybe something more like this:
use sort::radix_sort;
sort @data; # magically uses radix_sort instead of default.
--
John Porter
What would Gabrielle do?
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 03:43:21PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
use sort qw(radix_sort);
sort \radix_sort @data;
Isn't that the slot where the comparison function goes?
Maybe something more like this:
use sort::radix_sort;
sort @data; # magically uses
At 04:34 PM 12/28/00 -0500, John Porter wrote:
I seem to recall someone suggested on perl6-language a while back*
(or was it perl6-internals?) that perl ought also to support efficient
sorting of large volumes of data by using disk, the way unix sort does.
Pluggable algorithms would make this
PROTECTED])
Received: from rt158.private.realtime.co.uk (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[127.0.0.1])by rt158 (8.11.0/8.8.7)
with ESMTP id eATExu511390;Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:59:56 GMT
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FWP] sorting text in human-order
References: [EMAIL
David L. Nicol wrote:
Is there a perl6 sort committee yet? AFter reading Cawley's
method here, I wonder if using it we could make radix-sorts the
default sort method.
Perl6 ought to support pluggable sort algorithms, just as Perl
now supports pluggable comparison functions.
--
John
John Porter writes:
Perl6 ought to support pluggable sort algorithms, just as Perl
now supports pluggable comparison functions.
By "pluggable" you mean that sort() should be overridable?
Nat
32 matches
Mail list logo
