Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #3609Re: Soundex revisited
From: Thom Fruehwirth
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1988 13:43
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1988 13:43
14 lines
1134 bytes
1134 bytes
Commenting on my recent article, Richard O'Keefe <305@quintus.UUCP> tried to proof by illustration that my implementation version of soundex is too ugly. Richard O'Keefes implementation is based on a different specification, which is easier to implement. Second, his version is only half-way between my specification and implementation version To yield the same efficiency, a joining of his three predicates called in soundex_chars/2 into one is necessary. Note that the resulting version is arbitrarily faster than the current version depending on the length of the word (how about 'CodesWithoutDuplicates') one codes. The reason for this is that my version never codes more than three digits, while O'Keefes version codes the whole word.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1178@tuhold>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!tuvie!tuhold!thomShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!tuvie!tuhold!thom From: thom@tuhold (Thom Fruehwirth) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Soundex revisited Message-ID: <1178@tuhold> Date: 26 Aug 88 13:43:32 GMT Organization: Institut f. Angewandte Informatik, TU Vienna Lines: 14