"Ken Tilton" <kennytilton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47c0cf12$0$8071$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Stevan Apter wrote:
>> thanks for asking ken.
>>
>> e:{$[(#b)=i:(|/'b:(w@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(w:(`$" "\:x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
".?"))in`)in\:/:A)?1b;E@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> " "~n:c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(c:{x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i)ss/:N;c
>> .q.ssr[c;n;" "/:$(),P'(w[k],p:1_'(0,1+k:b[i]?1b)_`,w)"I"$n]]}
>
> Wonderful. I will post this over on the Arc forum, I think they are
> headed your way.
>
> So how big a chunk can a K guru toss off without taking a breath, if you
> will? I suppose it is like any language, developing bits and pieces
> before connecting it all. My suspicion is one can get off more
> functionality simply from the lower character count, once they are all
> known fluently.
i now prefer developing in q, which is k without ambivalence (symbols
denote
binary functions only, unary functions have keywords.)
based on what i've seen, my guess is that this problem has a k solution
half the size of mine, given a better representation of the prompt-respond
script. in general, that seems to be the key to good k (and as mark
observed,
APL) programming: tune your data to the primitives.
>
> kenny
>
>>
>> it's just a single eye-watering case statement:
>>
>> if no keyword match in A, then return a default response from E
>> else if no substitution in the response c picked from C, return c
>> else substitute and return
>>
>> it's easier to break the q code into smaller chunks. a revised version
>> here: http://www.nsl.com/k/eliza.q
>>
>>
>> "Ken Tilton" <kennytilton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:47c0813e$0$8080$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stevan Apter wrote:
>>>
>>>> in q:
>>>>
>>>> D:(("1 father|mother|brother|sister 2";"tell me about your 0.");
>>>> ("1 am|i'm 2";"why are you 2|have you always been 2?");
>>>> ("1 i 2";"why do you 2?");
>>>> ("1 you 2";"we're talking about you, not me.|please don't be so
>>>> personal"))
>>>>
>>>> E:"|"vs"that's very interesting. do go on.|
>>>> tell me more|
>>>> i'm not sure i understand you fully|
>>>> can you elaborate on that?"
>>>>
>>>> S:{(`$"|"vs first w where not b;raze w where b:(first each w:" "vs
>>>> x)in"0123456789")}each D[;0]
>>>> R:"|"vs'D[;1]
>>>> P:{(y,x,z)(x,y)?z}[`$("you";"your";"yourself";"i'm";"i
>>>> am");`$("i";"my";"myself";"you are";"you're")]
>>>>
>>>> e:{w:(`$" "vs x except".?")except`; / words
>>>> except punctuation, blanks
>>>> b:w in\:/:S[;0]; / boolean
>>>> mask: words X rules
>>>> if[count[b]=i:(any each b)?1b;:E first 1?count E]; / if no key
>>>> match on a rule, early exit
>>>> p:1_'(0,1+k:b[i]?1b)_`,w; / split input
>>>> on key
>>>> r:{x first 1?count x}R i; / pick a
rule
>>>> n:r first raze r ss/:"0123456789"; / which part
>>>> of input to replace
>>>> ssr[r;n;" "sv string(),P each(w[k],p)"I"$n]} / construct
>>>> reply
>>>>
>>>> in k it's about half the size, but i'll spare you.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd love to see it, or a link to any other sample K code. I recall
>>> seeing a one page implementation of a spreadsheet, that was wild.
>>>
>>> kenny
>
> --
> http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
> http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
>
> "In the morning, hear the Way;
> in the evening, die content!"
> -- Confucius
|
