Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351979
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: A maybe interesting code challenge |
| Date | 2016-04-26 12:41 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nfo5ht$buu$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <nf87hq$ndh$1@dont-email.me> <sandman-061f8c169bbdb2e75bbf17840d48d7ec@individual.net> <nflf1s$4s4$1@dont-email.me> <sandman-80f983cedf5b1ba801ffd374a529b082@individual.net> |
On 4/25/2016 2:06 PM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <nflf1s$4s4$1@dont-email.me>, DFS wrote:
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> I'll feed it from the command line. here's my PHP script:
>>
>>> foreach (preg_split("/\s*;\s*/", join("", array_slice($argv, 1)))
>>> as $part){ list ($field, $qualifier, $value) =
>>> preg_split("/\s*(=|like)\s*/", $part, 0,
>>> PREG_SPLIT_DELIM_CAPTURE); print "'$field' $qualifier '$value'\n";
>>> }
>>
>> Looks good. Does it work for 1-, 2- and 3-part searches?
>
> Of course:
>
> /parse.php "state=GA ; name = Burger King"
> 'state' = 'GA'
> 'name' = 'Burger King'
>
>> 1 part : state=GA
>> 2 parts: state=GA ; name = Burger King
>> 3 parts: state=GA ; name = Burger King ; zip like 303*
>
>> Fabian Russell gave a 2-line perl splitter that works for all:
>
>> $line =~ s/( like )|( = )|( ; )|[=;]/!/ig;
>> @vals = split /!/, $line;
>
> His perl was shite, though, and did nothing but split it up.
'Split it up' is half the battle, so I don't see a problem with his lines.
>> Then I added a little to get the data into the variables:
>
>> $fld1=$vals[0]; $val1=$vals[1];
>> $fld2=$vals[2]; $val2=$vals[3];
>> $fld3=$vals[4]; $val3=$vals[5];
>
> Which of course is of no need, since you split it up in two parts, not one.
> That way you get one split for the semicolons and one for the qualifiers.
> It's better to set up what they keys and values are.
Maybe.
>>> Obviously putting them in named variables is a piece of cake:
>
>> That's not quite what I asked for. You're giving me array addresses,
>> when I wanted 6 discrete variables declared and assigned to:
>> fld1,val1,fld2,val2,fld3,val3.
>
> Which, of course, is details.
heh! I think that's 3 responses now that used similar wording. I think
it's not a coincidence that all 3 failed to declare and assign the
variables, even though that was part of the primary requirement, as
stated in the 1st sentence of the 1st post in this thread.
> Looking at the code you can easily surmise that
> whatever format you'd like it in is equally possible. Saving the values as
> keys in an array is far more useful for processing the input than to assign
> discrete variables, since it lacks foresight and flexibility.
Assigning to discrete variables is just how I think most of the time.
Which has something to do with getting the data separated as much as
possible, rather than leaving it in a collection (array) and having to
find it with 'array(0)(1)' and such.
In my "real" program - of which this parse is a part - I split the
address being searched into key-values (in a VBScript dictionary object):
aDict.Add "Name", name
aDict.Add "Street", street
aDict.Add "City", city
aDict.Add "State", state
aDict.ADd "Zip", zip
After considering what you just said, it might also be helpful to store
the search criteria in key-value pairs as well:
sDict.Add "State", "GA"
sDict.Add "Name", "Burger King"
sDict.Add "Zip", "303*"
Because then I can use nested For loops to do a comparison like:
For each key1 in aDict
For each key2 in sDict
If key1 = key2 Then
If aDict(key1) = sDict(key2) Then
'exact match found
End If
End If
Next
Next
and possibly shorten the code.
Edit: just tried it and it worked perfectly - for exact matches. Will
now try to deal with wildcards and the != operator.
How would you do that (compare the contents of 2 dictionary objects) in
php or perl?
>>> Sandman:
>>> Only, you lose the qualifiers (i.e. you don't get the "=" or
>>> "like" which is supposedly meaningful.
>>
>> 'supposedly'?
>
> Yes, why would they otherwise differ?
>
>> As if being able to do a wildcard search using 'like' isn't a
>> meaningful feature?
>
> You're misunderstanding. Your example output, and especially Fabians messed
> up perl gave no importance to the qualifiers.
What's actually happening is you're giving importance to the qualifiers
(I call them operators) when that wasn't required.
> See the output of my first
> script again:
>
> /parse.php "state=GA ; name = Burger King ; zip like 303*"
> 'state' = 'GA'
> 'name' = 'Burger King'
> 'zip' like '303*'
>
> See how I can later process that into a SQL query for instance, where the
> "like" is treated differently than the "="'s. So you get this code:
>
> foreach (preg_split("/\s*;\s*/", join("", array_slice($argv, 1))) as $part){
> list ($field, $qualifier, $value) = preg_split("/\s*(=|like|!=)\s*/",
> $part, 0, PREG_SPLIT_DELIM_CAPTURE);
> $sql[] = $qualifier == "like" ? "$field like '" . str_replace("*",
> "%", $value) . "'" : "$field $qualifier '$value'";
> }
> print "select * from where table " . join(" and ", $sql) . "\n";
>
> And you run it like this:
>
> /parse.php "state=GA ; name = Burger King ; zip like 303*"
> select * from where table state = 'GA' and name = 'Burger King' and zip like
> '303%'
>
> But you can also use:
>
> /parse.php "state=GA ; name != Burger King ; zip like 303*"
> select * from where table state = 'GA' and name != 'Burger King' and zip like
> '303%'
>
> All in five lines of PHP. Also, it handles different spacing in the formats
> as well:
>
> /parse.php "state=GA;name!=Burger King;zip like 303*"
> select * from where table state = 'GA' and name != 'Burger King' and zip like
> '303%'
No db or SQL in this program - code only. But the != operator could be
an interesting feature to add.
Thanks for your code and analysis.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:37 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 08:45 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:57 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 09:02 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 01:54 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 18:57 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 02:45 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 23:01 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:56 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 11:06 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 16:13 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 17:27 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 19:07 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 19:01 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 09:37 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-22 08:33 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 22:03 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:22 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 19:48 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 17:24 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:18 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 22:26 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:43 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 22:50 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-22 22:57 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-23 13:07 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-23 09:58 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 21:48 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 17:00 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-22 21:56 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 19:39 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-23 15:25 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 13:14 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 18:37 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 16:50 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 21:15 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 18:36 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 23:24 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-22 08:21 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-22 10:04 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-23 00:09 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 00:18 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 05:59 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:46 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 19:04 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 20:40 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 17:48 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 22:14 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-23 23:15 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-23 23:30 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-24 08:52 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-24 10:06 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-24 15:59 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-24 15:45 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 10:19 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-25 20:26 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 23:24 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:03 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 11:40 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-25 15:14 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 12:05 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-25 18:06 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:41 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-26 18:03 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 17:39 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 05:50 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 06:43 -0500
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 13:11 +0100
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 13:32 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:32 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 15:02 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:17 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 16:21 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:42 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 21:39 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 23:25 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:34 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 05:37 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:42 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:45 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 16:23 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 18:40 +0200
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:58 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 20:57 +0200
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:06 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 22:44 +0200
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 13:38 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:07 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 15:51 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:30 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-27 21:38 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 11:33 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 09:14 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 14:17 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 18:49 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:42 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 13:42 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-29 10:54 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 11:20 -0700
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 00:31 +0200
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 19:00 -0400
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-30 10:36 -0400
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-02 07:54 -0500
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-02 15:55 +0200
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-02 07:23 -0700
Snit digest 215 / 2016-05-02 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-02 14:39 +0000
Re: Snit digest 215 / 2016-05-02 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-02 07:54 -0700
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-02 14:36 +0000
Re: Snit digest 214 / 2016-04-29 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-02 07:53 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 11:11 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 14:44 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 17:53 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-29 23:56 +0200
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 18:09 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-29 19:09 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 07:31 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-01 08:21 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 08:47 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-02 14:54 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-02 21:54 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-28 15:39 -0600
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:48 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-29 16:57 -0600
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-27 21:33 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-28 05:45 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-27 21:32 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-27 21:48 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 22:57 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:44 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 16:32 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 23:05 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:20 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:52 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-29 02:46 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:33 -0700
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2016-04-30 09:31 -0400
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 05:42 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 06:17 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-28 06:56 +0000
Re: A maybe interesting code challenge Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-28 05:46 -0400
csiph-web