Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
3 points by lojic 5259 days ago | link | parent

If it is correct, it's impressive. I wrote the Ruby version that Norvig links to which is here:

http://lojic.com/blog/2008/09/04/how-to-write-a-spelling-cor...

One third the lines of the Ruby version and roughly half the lines of Norvig's Python version is quite an endorsement of conciseness.

If anyone has input data that demonstrates a difference between pg's and Norvig's, please reply with a comment.

Also, Paul, if it is equivalent in functionality, I'd pass it on to Norvig and he can add a link to his page.

http://norvig.com/spell-correct.html

You may want a nicer page to link to - maybe a blog post or something with more background info.

I actually get fairly consistent traffic from Norvig's site to my blog post, so it could be a way to expose Arc to more programmers.



2 points by palsecam 5259 days ago | link

> If anyone has input data that demonstrates a difference between pg's and Norvig's, please reply with a comment.

In case you didn't see it, see above (http://arclanguage.org/item?id=10580)

Not exactly the same results than Norvig's version (>>> correct("speling") -> "sling" / "godd" -> "god") but I tested the Ruby version linked on his site, and it yields the same results.

I.e: Your / my "correction" of pg's version give "spelling" and "good".

And pg's vanilla version for (correct "yellow") gives "fellow".

-----

2 points by lojic 5258 days ago | link

Sorry, I noticed your post after I posted in haste. Nice work - 12 lines is still darn impressive. Followup with a comment if you use Norvig's test program and notice any other issues.

-----