Exclude Problems
[1/14] from: learned:talentsinc at: 26-Sep-2001 15:47
I have a block of about 480 elements, and am trying to use the
exclude function on them. If I set up a second block of even
two elements (i.e. ["SYSTEM" "SERIAL"] and execute the following:
foo: exclude block1 block2
I end up with far more than just the elements that have SYSTEM and
SERIAL removed from foo. Is there a potential problem with exclude, or am I
missing someting basic?
---
G. Edw. Learned - [learned--talentsinc--net]
(Never apply a Star Trek Solution to a Babylon Five Problem)
[2/14] from: greggirwin:starband at: 26-Sep-2001 15:54
hi G,
I haven't used exclude for anything big, but simple tests work. Maybe it's
something specific in your data?
>> exclude [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0] [3 5]
== [1 2 4 6 7 8 9 0]
>> exclude ["A" "B" "C" "D" "E" "F" "G"] ["C" "F"]
== ["A" "B" "D" "E" "G"]
>> exclude ["AA" "AB" "AC" "AD" "AE" "AF" "AG"] ["AC" "AF"]
== ["AA" "AB" "AD" "AE" "AG"]
>> exclude ["AA" "AB" "AC" "AD" "AE" "AF" "AG"] ["A" "AF"]
== ["AA" "AB" "AC" "AD" "AE" "AG"]
--Gregg
[3/14] from: learned:talentsinc at: 26-Sep-2001 17:08
I thought that too, which is why I reduced it down to excluding just one
item, SYSTEM, and it still took out words like SEAGATE and strings like
----
. Is a puzzlement.
--On Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:54 PM -0600 Gregg Irwin
<[greggirwin--starband--net]> wrote:
> hi G,
> I haven't used exclude for anything big, but simple tests work. Maybe it's
<<quoted lines omitted: 12>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
---
G. Edw. Learned - [learned--talentsinc--net]
(Never apply a Star Trek Solution to a Babylon Five Problem)
[4/14] from: al:bri:xtra at: 27-Sep-2001 15:15
G. Edw. Learned wrote:
> I have a block of about 480 elements, and am trying to use the exclude
function on them. If I set up a second block of even two elements (i.e.
["SYSTEM" "SERIAL"] and execute the following:
> foo: exclude block1 block2
>
> I end up with far more than just the elements that have SYSTEM and SERIAL
removed from foo. Is there a potential problem with exclude, or am I missing
someting basic?
'exclude will remove all duplicates. So if:
block1: ["A" "A" "A" "A"]
all but one of the "A" will be removed from block1.
Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://zen.scripterz.org
[5/14] from: allenk:powerup:au at: 27-Sep-2001 17:23
----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Edw. Learned" <[learned--talentsinc--net]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:08 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Exclude Problems
> I thought that too, which is why I reduced it down to excluding just one
> item, SYSTEM, and it still took out words like SEAGATE and strings like
> "----". Is a puzzlement.
Exclude also cleans up duplicate entries, such as.
>> exclude ["AA" "B" "C" "D" "E" "AA" "F" "G" "AA" "B" "AA" "B"] ["C" "F"]
== ["AA" "B" "D" "E" "G"]
Could that explain what you are seeing?
Cheers,
Allen K
[6/14] from: learned:talentsinc at: 27-Sep-2001 9:12
Argh, I just tested and yes, that's it exactly. I didn't see that little
feature
documented in the dictionary at the REBOL site. Thanks. Is there
a better source of documentation that I should get other than the online
word dictionary?
On the bad side, it just made exclude totally useless for my project. I
don't suppose that remove duplicate is an optional feature? Guess I'm back
to remove.
--On Thursday, September 27, 2001 5:23 PM +1000 Allen Kamp
<[allenk--powerup--com--au]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G. Edw. Learned" <[learned--talentsinc--net]>
<<quoted lines omitted: 14>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
---
G. Edw. Learned - [learned--talentsinc--net]
(Never apply a Star Trek Solution to a Babylon Five Problem)
[7/14] from: ammoncooke:y:ahoo at: 27-Sep-2001 13:25
Here:
excl-only: func [
"This is the Exclude function that doesn't exclude duplicates"
block1 "The original block"
block2 "The block to be 'excluded'"
][
tmp-block: [none]
tmp-block: remove find copy block1 copy block2
either not none? tmp-block[
return head tmp-block
][
return tmp-block
]
]
HTH!
Ammon
----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Edw. Learned" <[learned--talentsinc--net]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 7:12 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Exclude Problems
> Argh, I just tested and yes, that's it exactly. I didn't see that little
> "feature" documented in the dictionary at the REBOL site. Thanks. Is there
<<quoted lines omitted: 14>>
> >
> >> I thought that too, which is why I reduced it down to excluding just
one
> >> item, SYSTEM, and it still took out words like SEAGATE and strings like
> >> "----". Is a puzzlement.
> >
> > Exclude also cleans up duplicate entries, such as.
> >>> exclude ["AA" "B" "C" "D" "E" "AA" "F" "G" "AA" "B" "AA" "B"] ["C"
F
]
[8/14] from: learned:talentsinc at: 27-Sep-2001 14:45
That seems to work only if block 2 has only one item in it. I need to play
with it some more I think.
--On Thursday, September 27, 2001 1:25 PM -0700 Ammon Cooke
<[ammoncooke--yahoo--com]> wrote:
> Here:
> excl-only: func [
<<quoted lines omitted: 74>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
---
G. Edw. Learned - [learned--talentsinc--net]
(Never apply a Star Trek Solution to a Babylon Five Problem)
[9/14] from: ammoncooke:y:ahoo at: 28-Sep-2001 5:50
Oh, I didn't catch that. Here's the fixed code!
excl-only: func [
"This is the Exclude function that doesn't exclude duplicates"
block1 "The original block"
block2 "The block to be 'excluded'"
][
tmp-block: copy block1
either (length? b) > 1[
repeat val block2 [remove find tmp-block val]
][
remove find tmp-block block2
]
either not none? tmp-block[
return head tmp-block
][
return tmp-block
]
]
Enjoy!!
Ammon
[10/14] from: ammoncooke:yah:oo at: 28-Sep-2001 5:53
Sorry, I forgot to fully omptimize that code here is a lot smaller version:
excl-only: func [
"This is the Exclude function that doesn't exclude duplicates"
block1 "The original block"
block2 "The block to be 'excluded'"
][
tmp-block: copy block1
repeat val block2 [remove find tmp-block val]
either not none? tmp-block[
return head tmp-block
][
return tmp-block
]
]
Enjoy!!
Ammon
[11/14] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 28-Sep-2001 1:52
Hi, Ammon, and all,
I've been way busy with a pending s/w release, so haven't been
keeping up with this thread very well, but...
Ammon Cooke wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to fully omptimize that code here is a lot
> smaller version:
<<quoted lines omitted: 11>>
> ]
> ]
I'd suggest making TMP-BLOCK a /LOCAL to prevent contaminating
the global namespace.
I'm not clear on why the following wouldn't be a valid solution.
Am I missing some subtlety?
remove-all: func [source [block!] targets [block!] /local result] [
result: copy source
foreach target targets [
remove find result target
]
result
]
>> remove-all [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9] [2 4 6 8]
== [1 3 5 7 9]
>> remove-all [9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1] [2 4 6 8]
== [9 7 5 3 1]
>> remove-all [1 9 2 8 3 7 4 5 6] [0 2 4 6 8]
== [1 9 3 7 5]
>> remove-all [1 9 2 8 3 7 4 5 6] []
== [1 9 2 8 3 7 4 5 6]
>> remove-all [1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6] [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]
== [2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6]
>> remove-all [] [1]
== []
>> remove-all [2] [1]
== [2]
>> remove-all [2] []
== [2]
>> remove-all [2] [2 2 2 2]
== []
>> remove-all [1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6] [9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1]
== [2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6]
I can't think of any more obvious test scenarios at the moment,
but would be happy to hear of anything I've overlooked.
-jn-
--
That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of the
time.
-- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
FIX&PUNCTUATION&joel&dot&neely&at&fedex&dot&com
[12/14] from: ammoncooke:y:ahoo at: 28-Sep-2001 8:58
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Neely" <[joel--neely--fedex--com]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:52 PM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Exclude Problems
<snip>
>
> I'd suggest making TMP-BLOCK a /LOCAL to prevent contaminating
> the global namespace.
>
I like that one! I just overlooked it.
> I'm not clear on why the following wouldn't be a valid solution.
> Am I missing some subtlety?
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> result
> ]
No, that works great! As you can see you still have many years experience
on me. ;) I still just starting to crack out of my shell!
I wasn't the one asking for it so I am certain that it will do, Bu tI
believe it will.
\Thanks!!
Ammon
[13/14] from: learned:talentsinc at: 28-Sep-2001 10:05
Thanks, I need to study this code a bit...when things relate to a real
world situation it's a lot easier for me to grok. I do have a question
though...in theory, this could be done by redefining exclude as well by
adding an exclude/only modifier...am I right?
Not asking for it, just trying to understand all the options.
Thanks again!
--On Friday, September 28, 2001 5:50 AM -0700 Ammon Cooke
<[ammoncooke--yahoo--com]> wrote:
> Oh, I didn't catch that. Here's the fixed code!
> excl-only: func [
<<quoted lines omitted: 127>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
---
G. Edw. Learned - [learned--talentsinc--net]
(Never apply a Star Trek Solution to a Babylon Five Problem)
[14/14] from: ammoncooke:y:ahoo at: 28-Sep-2001 17:49
Yes you can also redefine 'exclude. There are NO words that you cannot
redefine! 'exclude is a native value so its source is not readily
available. To define a refinement:
some-func: func [/refinement values-to-pass-with-refinement][
if refinement [do code]
]
HTH!
Ammon
PS Did you see the code Joel Neely provided? It is far better than the code
I posted.
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted