Please forget my last two posts, they contain wrong statements.
Haven't seen that this is already implemented using the term "subsequence of
elements":
>From the dictionary.
Target contains Needle if and only if the elements of Needle occur as a
_subsequence of the elements_ of Target.
So I sho
(LC Builder 'contains' vs 'is in')
=
Ali, are the following TRUE statements?
1. Every list "contains" the empty list.
2. [x] "contains" [x, x].
3. nothing "is in" the empty list.
> (Corrected in line 5 contains
(LC Builder 'contains' vs 'is in')
=
TMHO this abstract writing of Ali's examples is easy to remember,
the different "level" of the comparison is visible by the brackets.
x "is in" A if and only if A "contains&qu
As an example, consider a list ["a", "b", "c"]. "a" is in the list. But the
list ["a", "b"] is *not* in the list, as it is not an element of the list -
all the elements of the list are strings, and ["a", "b"] is a list.
However, ["a", "b", "c"] *does* contain ["a", "b"] as the latter occurs as
a 's
WHAT?
There is some subtlety that I am missing, Ali.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Ali Lloyd wrote:
> Peter has pointed out that I am technically using the word 'subsequence' in
> error, and should probably have used 'substring' instead!
> (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequence vs
> htt
Peter has pointed out that I am technically using the word 'subsequence' in
error, and should probably have used 'substring' instead!
(cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequence vs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substring)
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM Ali Lloyd wrote:
> 'contains' and 'is in
'contains' and 'is in' are implemented exactly the same in LiveCode Script,
so there shouldn't be any difference. However there is an interesting
subtlety that emerges when you consider what these two bits of syntax
should do, which explains why they are different in LCB.
When we say 'A contains B
I interact with copier interfaces quite a lot and the process of backing up the
data involves going through various pages and typing what I see there into a
text file. I have always thought it would be great to write an app that can do
it for me, but I have never been able to scrape anything mor
the short answer is "yes", but it can be more complicated as it may require
some javascript execution to pull the data from the server. It depends on
the site you are scraping. You can also (possibly) use a service that can
yank that for you.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Bob Sneidar
wrote:
Speaking of which, is it possible to scrape values from web controls like menus
and check boxes?
Bob S
On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:12 , Mike Kerner
mailto:mikeker...@roadrunner.com>> wrote:
I mean if you do web scraping and use LC to analyze the results, a million
is a small number.
__
Thanks. I've been accused of over-obsessing about performance so often
that it didn't occur to me my comment could be seen as erring the other
way. :)
I've done scraping, but fortunately here the simplest syntax is also the
more efficient.
And even in tasks requiring fewer than a million ite
I mean if you do web scraping and use LC to analyze the results, a million
is a small number.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:34 PM, hh wrote:
> I think he means
>
> 10% of 1/100 of 1,000,000 iterations of a nano-million-dollar are 1 dollar.
>
> > Richard Gaskin wrote:
> > ?
> >> Mike Kerner wrote:
> >
I think he means
10% of 1/100 of 1,000,000 iterations of a nano-million-dollar are 1 dollar.
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
> ?
>> Mike Kerner wrote:
>> > says the guy who doesn't scrape.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> >
>> >> hh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I wasn't aware of
?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Mike Kerner wrote:
says the guy who doesn't scrape.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
hh wrote:
> I wasn't aware of that, good to know, "is in"/"contains" is 10%
> faster than "offset() > 0".
But as with many benchmarks, it's
says the guy who doesn't scrape.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:
> hh wrote:
>
> > I wasn't aware of that, good to know, "is in"/"contains" is 10%
> > faster than "offset() > 0".
>
> But as with many benchmarks, it's helpful to keep the absolute times in
> mind.
>
> In my q
hh wrote:
> I wasn't aware of that, good to know, "is in"/"contains" is 10%
> faster than "offset() > 0".
But as with many benchmarks, it's helpful to keep the absolute times in
mind.
In my quickie test script I had to use 1,000,000 iterations just to get
any appreciable duration to test.
But there is interestingly the fact that both are faster than
put offset("foo","this is a string with foo in it") > 0 into r3
(seen by 'enlarging' your test).
Quite clear because "is in" and "contains" do the ">0" test in the engine,
while the above needs a further comparison of two numbers:
pu
On 1/2/17 4:44 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
hh wrote:
There is a "contains"-repeat and a "is in"-repeat.
If I use one as first and the other as second repeat loop I get that
the one that is called first is a little bit faster ...
Isn't it that deep in the stomach of LC both use the same
offset(su
hh wrote:
> There is a "contains"-repeat and a "is in"-repeat.
> If I use one as first and the other as second repeat loop I get that
> the one that is called first is a little bit faster ...
>
> Isn't it that deep in the stomach of LC both use the same
> offset(substring, string) routine?
I wou
[There is always some crazy time overcrossing here, I posted half an hour
before you.]
I have here the following result with your code (in average).
There is a "contains"-repeat and a "is in"-repeat.
If I use one as first and the other as second repeat loop I get that the one
that is called fir
Mark Talluto wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 2:32 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>>
>> Did someone once say that between "contains" and "is in",
>> one is faster than the other?
>
> This is a great question. One of the engineers on the LC team would
> be needed to answer this one.
Or you could test it:
> Jacqueline L.G. wrote:
> > Did someone once say that between "contains" and "is in", one is faster
> > than the other?
Mark T. wrote:
> This is a great question. One of the engineers on the LC team would be
> needed to answer this one.
There is a real big difference: "is in" are 5 chars and "co
> On Dec 30, 2016, at 2:32 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> Did someone once say that between "contains" and "is in", one is faster than
> the other?
This is a great question. One of the engineers on the LC team would be needed
to answer this one.
Best regards,
Mark Talluto
livecloud.io
canelas
Did someone once say that between "contains" and "is in", one is faster
than the other?
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
us
24 matches
Mail list logo
