Timeline for How to Set Priority Between Longest and Shortest [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 9:23 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 1, 2016 at 4:50 | comment | added | Wjx | @Mr.Wizard wow, a thousand thanks for your appreciation to this series. I am constantly thinking about examples as well, but as you can see, a good example is hard to find...... | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 4:47 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @Wjx Yes they can be. I certainly have not forgotten about it. I have found your series of questions about pattern matching quite interesting. I hope you are not discouraged by this question presently being closed, and I still hope we eventually come up with a clear and concise example and reopen it. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 4:42 | comment | added | Wjx | @Mr.Wizard alright……Shortest and Longest can be very very confusing sometimes, especially when using together. And thanks for remembering my problem! | |
| Jul 31, 2016 at 13:30 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard |
Sorry, but please forget what I wrote before. I messed with far too many combinations of Shortest and Longest and rather confused myself. I updated my answer to the linked question accordingly. I don't think this can be used as a good example for this question.
|
|
| Jul 31, 2016 at 10:15 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard |
@Wjx While responding to another one of your questions I think I found an example that you could use to reopen this question. On my system RealDigits[99/700, 10, 24][[1]] /. {pre___, Longest[Repeated[rep__, {2, Infinity}]], inc___} /; MatchQ[{rep}, {inc, __}] :> {{pre}, {rep}, {inc}} gives the answer desired but RealDigits[99/700, 10, 24][[1]] /. {pre___, Longest[Repeated[Shortest[rep__], {2, Infinity}]], inc___} /; MatchQ[{rep}, {inc, __}] :> {{pre}, {rep}, {inc}} gives the "wrong" one. (continued)
|
|
| Jul 11, 2016 at 0:31 | history | closed |
MarcoB Bob Hanlon Öskå Jens Mr.Wizard |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Jul 7, 2016 at 14:40 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 11, 2016 at 0:34 | |||||
| Jul 7, 2016 at 0:01 | comment | added | Wjx | Oh, thanks! I'll have to admit that this kind of example is hard to find out. I'll try~ | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 23:45 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | Then as I have said several times I think we need a better (and more complex) example where the behavior you wish to see is needed rather than merely incidental. You may have seen the phrase "explain like I'm five." Anyway it's your question and you can update it or not, but without a clarifying update I shall move on to more clear yet interesting questions like (118183). | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 23:42 | comment | added | Wjx |
And this problem is just asking for one solution to the thing I've mentioned in the previous comment. The desired result is that when I input Replace[{1, 2}, {Longest[Shortest[x__, 1], 2], y___} :> {x}] I can get Longest work at the top priority thus return {1,2}
|
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 23:40 | comment | added | Wjx |
@Mr.Wizard I know the priority settings works pretty well when handling multiple Shortest s or Longest s, but it's simply wierd that we cannot set priority between them, it doesn't seem like a hard problem to set priority between them as they are the same sort of function and if we do so, all the actions we can do now can be done in the same way, but we can get a much better control of the priority.
|
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 23:35 | comment | added | Wjx | En, I want to control the priority more, maybe some sort of let it work in a different way. Also I suppose a better understanding will help. | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 23:22 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard |
By my reading however you seem to want the priority parameter to make Longest and Shortest behave differently from the way it does now. Your question as written does not appear to be about understanding the existing behavior but rather extending it in a particular way, i.e. "I suppose there must be some cases when we need to specify the priority between them ..." I think you already understand what the priority parameter of Shortest and Longest do as you illustrated that yourself.
|
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 23:10 | comment | added | Wjx | @Mr.Wizard er, actually this I ask this question just because I find their priority system is totally seperated and want to know how Mathematica automatically handle the priority between them and how can we manipulate this process. | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 22:56 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard |
I suspect that you want something fundamentally different from the built-in implementation of Longest and Shortest, even with priority specified. I feel that you still need to provide a better and more complete example that does not have a trivial reduction.
|
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 22:50 | comment | added | Wjx |
As it's already the Shortest one it can find.
|
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 22:49 | comment | added | Wjx |
@Mr.Wizard I suppose the example with two Longest is similar, as you cannot let two sequence simultaneously Longest, but in this case the problem can be solved. I suppose Longest and Shortest shouldn't be considered as actually longest or shortest, but the longest and shortest it can get within the restrictions. So if a Longest with higher priority already set a limit to it, it must follow. Thus, if we can define the priority in my case, for example, set Longest at a higher priority, the Shortest shall find there's no other option but one, thus obey the result given by Longest.
|
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 22:37 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard |
Your example does not make sense to me. How can a single pattern x__ be simultaneously Shortest and Longest?
|
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 15:17 | comment | added | Wjx | @MacroB Updated~Can this edit explain a bit more? | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 15:16 | history | edited | Wjx | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1142 characters in body
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 12:31 | comment | added | MarcoB | "I suppose there must be some cases when we need to specify need to priority between them": and yet, you can't even come up with an example for such a need? Aren't you perhaps trying to solve a non-existent problem? Unfortunately the question seems rather unclear to me as written. | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 12:15 | history | asked | Wjx | CC BY-SA 3.0 |