What do you want to contribute?

[Monte Goulding]

Hmm... I think your code using current syntax is actually clearer than the proposed syntax. I definitely don't like adding meaningful comma given the confusion with items... You could replace that with a semi-colon or new line though.  

--
M E R Goulding
Software development services

mergExt - There's an external for that!

On 18/02/2013, at 5:13 PM, 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