World: r3wp
[Parse] Discussion of PARSE dialect
older newer | first last |
Geomol 31-Oct-2011 [5885x3] | ne: ["←" | "↵"] ; and the rest of the named entities s: "To send, press the ← arrow & then press ↵." parse s [ any [ to #"&" [ne | skip mark: (insert mark "amp;")] ] ] s == {To send, press the ← arrow & then press ↵.} |
It may be faster to drop the & from the entities and change the rule to: any [thru #"&" [ne | mark: (insert mark "amp;")] | |
That's strange. My 2nd suggestion gives a different result: ne: ["larr;" | "crarr;"] s: "To send, press the ← arrow & then press ↵." parse s [ any [ thru #"&" [ne | mark: (insert mark "amp;")] ] ] s == {To send, press the ← arrow & amp;then press ↵.} Seems like a bug, or am I just tired? | |
Sunanda 31-Oct-2011 [5888] | Thanks for the quick contributions, geomol. I see a different result too -- a space between the "&" and the "amp" |
Pekr 31-Oct-2011 [5889x2] | not fluent with html escaping, what's the aim? To replace stand-alone #"&" with "&"? |
also remember - parse does not count spaces in. You are better in using parse/all | |
Ladislav 31-Oct-2011 [5891] | 'I want to escape every "&" in the text, unless it is part of a named entity' - just to make sure: if the entity is not in the ENTITIES list, like e.g. " and it is encountered in the given TEXT, what exactly should happen? |
Sunanda 31-Oct-2011 [5892x3] | The aim --- Basically, yes, Petr. |
Ladislav -- if it is not in the list, then I'd like it escaped, please. Think of it as a whitelist of ecceptable named entities. All others are suspect :) | |
ecceptable ==> acceptable | |
Ladislav 31-Oct-2011 [5895] | Yes, OK, I just wanted to know |
Pekr 31-Oct-2011 [5896] | Geomol - your code basically works, no? Just use parse/all: >> parse/all s [any [thru #"&" [ne | mark: (insert mark "amp;")]]] == false >> s == {To send, press the ← arrow & then press ↵.} |
Ladislav 31-Oct-2011 [5897x6] | I guess, that this should be efficient: alpha: make bitset! [#"a" - #"z" #"A" - #"Z"] escape-amps: func [ text [string!] entities [hash!] /local result pos1 pos2 ][ result: copy "" parse/all text [ pos1: any [ ; find the next amp thru #"&" pos2: [ ; entity check some alpha pos3: #";" ( ; entity candidate unless find entities copy/part pos2 pos3 [ ; not an entity insert insert tail result copy/part pos1 pos2 "amp;" pos1: pos2 ] ) | ( ; not an entity insert insert tail result copy/part pos1 pos2 "amp;" pos1: pos2 ) ] | (insert tail result pos1) end skip ; no amp found ] ] result ] |
(in place inserts are too slow) | |
(= inefficient) | |
Err: pos3 should be added as a local | |
This is how it works: >> probe escape-amps text named-entities {To send, press the ← arrow & then press ↵.&susp;123} == {To send, press the ← arrow & then press ↵.&susp;123} | |
With TEXT defined: >> text: "To send, press the ← arrow & then press ↵.&susp;123" | |
Geomol 31-Oct-2011 [5903] | Pekr, yeah, probably because I left out the /all refinement. Makes sense. |
Sunanda 31-Oct-2011 [5904] | Thanks Ladislav and Geomol. Both your solutions work with my test data -- that's always a good sign :) I'll do some timing tests with large entity lists ..... But I won't be able to do that for 24 hours. Other approaches still welcome! |
Andreas 31-Oct-2011 [5905] | Two suggestions: - store your named entities as a hash! (order of magnitude speedup for FIND) - if you have loooong "words", restrict Ladislav's `some alpha` to the maximum length of a valid entity |
Ladislav 31-Oct-2011 [5906] | This alternative does not use the COPY call, so, it has to be faster: alpha: make bitset! [#"a" - #"z" #"A" - #"Z"] escape-amps: func [ text [string!] entities [hash!] /local result pos1 pos2 pos3 ][ result: copy "" parse/all text [ pos1: any [ ; find the next amp thru #"&" pos2: [ ; entity check some alpha pos3: #";" ( ; entity candidate unless find entities copy/part pos2 pos3 [ ; not an entity insert insert/part tail result pos1 pos2 "amp;" pos1: pos2 ] ) | ( ; not an entity insert insert/part tail result pos1 pos2 "amp;" pos1: pos2 ) ] | (insert tail result pos1) end skip ; no amp found ] ] result ] |
PeterWood 1-Nov-2011 [5907x3] | Perhaps building a parse rule from the list of entities may be faster if there is a lot of text to process: This assumes the entities are provided as strings in a block. escape-amps: func [ text [string!] entities [block!] ][ skip-it: complement charset [#"&"] entity: copy [] foreach ent entities [ insert entity compose [(ent) |]] head remove back tail entity parse/all text [ any [ entity | "&" pos: (insert pos "amp;" pos: skip pos 4) :pos | some skip-it ] ] head tex t ] |
That should read head text at the end of the function. | |
Also I feel using skip could be very slow if the text contains a lot of "non-matching text". The "skip-it" technique could also be applied to Ladislav's code. | |
Ladislav 1-Nov-2011 [5910x3] | 'The "skip-it" technique could also be applied to Ladislav's code.' - I do not think so |
(not that it cannot be applied, but, it is not efficient, in my opinion) | |
Regarding the optimizations: - my code is optimized for the case when there are many entities. (hash! search, as Andreas suggested as well) When the number of entities is small, this optimization does not help - my code is optimized for the case when the TEXT is large (append is much faster than in place insert), for small texts this optimization does not help | |
Gabriele 1-Nov-2011 [5913] | Sunanda, note that this is already available in the text encoding module: http://www.rebol.it/power-mezz/mezz/text-encoding.html |
Sunanda 1-Nov-2011 [5914x3] | Wow -- thanks Gabriele. For me, your powermezz is a much overlooked gem. I fear I have, in effect, badly implemented chunks of your functionality over the past few months while I've worked on an application that takes unconstrained text and constrains it to look okay in a web page and when printed via LaTeX. I should have read the documentation first! |
I've put aside looking at the powermezz for now, and simply decided to use one of the three case-specific solutions offered here. I made some tweaks to ensure the comparisons I was making were fair (and met a previously unstated condition). -- each in a func -- each works case sensitively (as previously unstated) -- use the complete entity set as defined by the WC3 -- changed Ladislav's Charset as some named entities have digits in their names -- moved Peter's set-up of his entity list out of the function and into one-off init code. It's been a fun hour of twiddling other people's code.....If you want your modifed code -- please kust ask. Timing results next ..... | |
My test data was heavily weighted towards the live conditions I expect to encounter (average text length 2000. Most texts are unlikely to have more than 1 named entity). All three scripts produced the same results -- so top marks for meeting the spec! Under my test conditions, Ladislav was fastest, followed by Geomol, followed by Peter. Other test conditions changed those rankings....So nothing is absolute. Using a Hash! contributed a lot to Ladislav's speed -- when I tried it as a Block! it was only slightly faster than Geomol's.....What a pity R3 removes hash! Thanks for contributing these solutions -- I've enjoyed looking at your code and marvelling at the different approaches REBOL makes possible. | |
Ladislav 1-Nov-2011 [5917] | Using a Hash! contributed a lot to Ladislav's speed -- when I tried it as a Block! it was only slightly faster than Geomol's.....What a pity R3 removes hash! - no problem, in R3 you can use map! |
Sunanda 1-Nov-2011 [5918] | That's true, but map! isa bit awkward for just looking up an item in a list.....Map! is optimised for retrieving a value associated with a key. |
Ladislav 1-Nov-2011 [5919x4] | as follows: entities-map: make map! [] foreach entity entities-block [entities-map/:entity: true] |
so, keys are the entities, and the value is either true (for an entity) or none | |
I think it is OK that way | |
Another solution is to use a sorted block and a binary search, which should be about the same speed as hash | |
Sunanda 1-Nov-2011 [5923] | Yes, it is doable with map! -- but, as I said awkward. Another issue (or perhaps just unfixed bug) is the lack of case sensitivity with map! select/case make map! ["A" true] "a" == true The current work-around is to use binary rather than string data: select make map! reduce [to-binary "A" true] to-binary "a" == none |
Ladislav 1-Nov-2011 [5924x3] | yes, right, that is an issue |
BTW, I think, that there is a possible optimization not using the charset you mention | |
Are you still interested? | |
Sunanda 1-Nov-2011 [5927] | Yes please! |
Ladislav 14-Nov-2011 [5928x4] | Sorry for not continuing with it, Sunanda, but when I gave it a second thought, it did not look like a possible speed-up could be worth the source code complication. |
Another Parse discussion subject: It looked to me like a good idea to be able in one Parse pass to sometimes match some strings in a case-sensitive way and other strings in a case-insensitive way. This is not possible using the /CASE refinement, since the refinement makes all comparison case sensitive, or if not used, all comparisons are case insensitive. Wouldn't it be good to be able to adjust the comparison sensitivity on-the-fly during parsing? | |
I think, that it should not be overly complicated to achieve the goal e.g. by using a CASE keyword in PARSE. | |
(for switching to case-sensitive mode, and e.g. a NO-CASE for switching to case-insensitive mode) | |
BrianH 14-Nov-2011 [5932x3] | How about a CASE operation that applies to the next rule, which could be a block? No NO-CASE operation required, and better to integrate with backtracking. |
It would be a modifier, like OPT or 1. | |
While we're at it, the KEEP operation from Topaz would be useful. I use PARSE wrapped in COLLECT, calling KEEP in parens, quite a bit. | |
older newer | first last |