What do you want to contribute?

[Mike Kerner]

and as long as I'm thinking about it, the possibility of (more readily)
making english-like syntax more so makes open sourcing much more
interesting - as long as I don't feel like I'm coding in COBOL when we're
done.


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Mike Kerner <MikeKerner at roadrunner.com>wrote:

> it is, but I don't think we should settle for that, either.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Geoff Canyon <gcanyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's an interesting real(ish) world example:
>> http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2011/12/more-shell-less-egg/
>>
>> The goal is to find the ten most common words in a text file.
>>
>> Donald Knuth wrote something in literate code form, in Pascal. The result
>> was ten pages of code. In the article, Doug McIlroy wrote it in shell
>> script as:
>>
>> 1  tr -cs A-Za-z '\n' |2  tr A-Z a-z |3  sort |4  uniq -c |5  sort -rn
>> |6  sed ${1}q
>>
>> and called out Knuth on his supposedly more clear, ten-page solution.
>>
>> It turns out six lines of transcript accomplishes the same thing:
>>
>>    repeat for each word w in replacetext(url ("file:" &
>> filePath),"(?i)[^a-z]"," ")
>>       add 1 to c[w]
>>    end repeat
>>    combine c using cr and comma
>>    sort lines of c descending numeric by item 2 of each
>>    put line 1 to 10 of c
>>
>> If anyone can do it more elegantly, I'm curious to know how. But in a
>> language where we can write our own syntax, this seems likely to be
>> possible:
>>
>> put file filePath with all non-alphabetic characters replaced with space
>> into fileString
>> for each unique word w in fileString, put w,the count of w & cr after
>> countList
>> put the first 10 lines of countList sorted numeric descending by item 2
>>
>> Maybe that's not clearer, but it should be possible.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Geoff Canyon <gcanyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Monte Goulding <
>> > monte at sweattechnologies.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In my example I used "each line OF x" rather than "each line IN x". I
>> >> often get caught on repeat for each line X IN y when I write OF. Could
>> I
>> >> add OF to the repeat syntax so it didn't matter? It seems natural to me
>> >> either way. If not then perhaps our syntax should be:
>> >>
>> >> trim each line in X
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > The impression I got was that the new language ability would make it
>> > fairly simple (or at least possible) to allow for either of or in. I'm
>> > right there with you -- I don't actually code that often anymore, but
>> > nearly every time I do, I mix up of and in. In my perfect world the
>> > prepositions would be interchangeable and likely not significant, so of,
>> > in, through, across, within, and maybe others.
>> >
>> > gc
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
>
>
>
> --
> On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
> On the second day, God created the oceans.
> On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
>    and did a little diving.
> And God said, "This is good."
>



-- 
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."