Timeline for How to speed up pattern matching
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2016 at 1:22 | comment | added | Wjx | Check @Mr.Wizard 's update~ | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 15:26 | comment | added | Michael E2 |
@Wjx I don't understand your simple alternation. Cases[{{1}}, a_ /; MatchQ[a, {x__?((...; Return[False, MatchQ])&), z__}]]? Or perhaps you could clarify what you do want? (I can't fix something that's working on the example problem, obviously.)
|
|
| Aug 1, 2016 at 14:58 | comment | added | Wjx |
I'll have to say that this answer will do the job, but only for my far too simple illustrative code, instead of pattern matching in general. A simple alternation from MatchQ to Cases and return False only when inputing 1 will make this kind of solution fail. Its implementation is too narrow, actually not quite what I want.
|
|
| Aug 1, 2016 at 14:18 | history | edited | Michael E2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added alternative
|
| Aug 1, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | Michael E2 | The logic of this use-case is simple enough to allow this simple optimization. One can imagine a more general question of how to find the optimal check on a given pattern. My feeling is that is impractical to solve. But one might be able to apply code-optimization techniques to the problem. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 14:08 | history | answered | Michael E2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |