I have an idea. Send that japanese to Larry and have him translate it.
However he translates it, it's official.
p
Jeff Okamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
> > > say we start with this number
> > > 123,456,789
> > >
> > > one
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
> > say we start with this number
> > 123,456,789
> >
> > one hundred twenty-three million four hundred fifty-six thousand seven hundred
> > eighty-nine
>
> satakaksikymmentäkolme miljoonaa neljäsataaviisikymmentäkuusi tuhatta
> sei
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
> generally speaking when you look a number and convert it into text you go through
> some simble steps
>
> say we start with this number
> 123,456,789
>
> ...
>
> then we convert to words
>
>(((one*hundred)+(twenty+three))*million)+
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
> generally speaking when you look a number and convert it into text you go through
> some simble steps
>
> say we start with this number
> 123,456,789
> first we divide into sets of three
> (123,000,000)+(456,000)+(789)
> then we expa
generally speaking when you look a number and convert it into text you go through
some simble steps
say we start with this number
123,456,789
first we divide into sets of three
(123,000,000)+(456,000)+(789)
then we expand
(123*1,000,000) + (456*1,000)+(789)
and expand further
(((1*100)+(20+3))*1,
David Grove wrote:
>
> Ok, let's be pedantic.
Everyone is pedantic. And they're all *right*.
> The one thing that I learned in high school speech class was that, if you
> say it, and people understand you, it's correct. It may not be proper, but
> it's correct, because it serves its purpose.
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > But, but... 0.21 is *not* 'point twenty one', it's 'point two one',
> > otherwise you get into weirdness with: .21 and .210 being spoken as
> > 'point twenty one' and 'point two hundred (?:and)? ten'
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
> But, but... 0.21 is *not* 'point twenty one', it's 'point two one',
> otherwise you get into weirdness with: .21 and .210 being spoken as
> 'point twenty one' and 'point two hundred (?:and)? ten' and all of a
> sudden the '2' in that figure has gained an
Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Cantrell wrote:
>
> > And in any case, I can think of three different ways of saying 1821 in
> > English alone.
> >
> > One thousand eight hundred and twenty one
> > One thousand eight hundred twenty one
> > Eighteen hundred and twenty one
> >
>
David Cantrell wrote:
> And in any case, I can think of three different ways of saying 1821 in
> English alone.
>
> One thousand eight hundred and twenty one
> One thousand eight hundred twenty one
> Eighteen hundred and twenty one
>
> As far as *I* am concerned, the middle one is wrong (although
David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:28:26AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> > And for 'proper' library type sorting (assuming all works are in
> > English) we should really be doing something like:
> >
> > require Lingua::EN::Numbers;
> > s/(\d+(?:\.\d
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:28:26AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> And for 'proper' library type sorting (assuming all works are in
> English) we should really be doing something like:
>
> require Lingua::EN::Numbers;
> s/(\d+(?:\.\d+))/Lingua::EN::Numbers->($1)->get_string/eg;
>
> since i
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, "David L. Nicol"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I do not know exactly what the perl5 default sort heuristic is,
> > > > asid
"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc Lehmann wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > I do not know exactly what the perl5 default sort heuristic is,
> > > aside that it tries to DWIM both numeric and string data.
> "JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JSD> On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 04:31:42PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> (1) Quicksort has a weak point where it goes deep into the Quadratic Land:
>> (nearly) already ordered data. No, that is not so far-fetched a case.
>>
Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > I do not know exactly what the perl5 default sort heuristic is, aside that
> > it tries to DWIM both numeric and string data.
>
> There is no heuristic, the default is simply $a cm
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> "sort heuristic"? "DWIM both numeric and string data"? There is
> no "heuristic". There is no "DWIM". Perl's sort() does by default
> string sort based on the byte values of the strings of its argument
> list. That's it. Period. Full stop.
Oh.
$ perl -le 'for
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 04:31:42PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> (1) Quicksort has a weak point where it goes deep into the Quadratic Land:
> (nearly) already ordered data. No, that is not so far-fetched a case.
> Mergesort has no similar weakpoints: its performance is in fact
> c
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 02:04:25PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 11:47:59PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > The sorting algorithm? Before 5.005 (I think...my memory is going)
> > vendors' quicksort, after that Tom Horsley's excellent ultratuned
> > quicksort (sinc
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 11:47:59PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> The sorting algorithm? Before 5.005 (I think...my memory is going)
> vendors' quicksort, after that Tom Horsley's excellent ultratuned
> quicksort (since vendors' quicksorts were (a) buggy (c) slow),
> in 5.7 mergesort by John Li
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 05:31:29AM +, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> >
> > >"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > After reading Cawley's
> > > method, I wondered if using it we could make radix-sorts the
> > > default sort method.
> >
> > Er... the point behind ch
Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> >"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > After reading Cawley's
> > method, I wondered if using it we could make radix-sorts the
> > default sort method.
>
> Er... the point behind changing numbers to binary strings was
> emphatically not so that they could be so
>"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes) writes:
>>>
>>> > $srt =~ tr/0-9a-z\xe9/a-jA-ZE/; # uc & sort nums after letters
>>
>> `10' is going to sort before `2' with that rule. Having done the
At 04:34 PM 12/28/00 -0500, John Porter wrote:
>I seem to recall someone suggested on perl6-language a while back*
>(or was it perl6-internals?) that perl ought also to support efficient
>sorting of large volumes of data by using disk, the way unix sort does.
>Pluggable algorithms would make this
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
> If someone wants to play with such ideas there's Perl 5.7 which has a
> new mergesort as the incore sorting algorithm, while Perl 5.6 and before
> used quicksort.
I'm triggering on the word "incore" there...
I seem to recall someone suggested on perl6-language a whil
At 03:43 PM 12/28/00 -0500, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >use sort qw(radix_sort);
> >sort \&radix_sort @data;
>
>Isn't that the slot where the comparison function goes?
>Maybe something more like this:
>
>use sort::radix_sort;
>sort @data; # magically uses radix_sort inst
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 03:43:21PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >use sort qw(radix_sort);
> >sort \&radix_sort @data;
>
> Isn't that the slot where the comparison function goes?
> Maybe something more like this:
>
> use sort::radix_sort;
> sort @data; # magicall
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>use sort qw(radix_sort);
>sort \&radix_sort @data;
Isn't that the slot where the comparison function goes?
Maybe something more like this:
use sort::radix_sort;
sort @data; # magically uses radix_sort instead of default.
--
John Porter
What would Gabrielle do?
At 06:36 PM 12/27/00 -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Is there a perl6 sort committee yet? AFter reading Cawley's
>method here, I wonder if using it we could make radix-sorts the
>default sort method.
I don't see any reason to not allow this--perhaps a lexically scoped
assignment to CORE::GLOBAL:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 06:36:56PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> Is there a perl6 sort committee yet? AFter reading Cawley's
> method here, I wonder if using it we could make radix-sorts the
> default sort method.
Radix sorts are great if the data cooperates, radix sorts can really
fly in su
Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> By "pluggable" you mean that sort() should be overridable?
use D::Oh s s\?s.s;
--
John Porter
What would Gabrielle do?
John Porter writes:
> Perl6 ought to support pluggable sort algorithms, just as Perl
> now supports pluggable comparison functions.
By "pluggable" you mean that sort() should be overridable?
Nat
David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> Is there a perl6 sort committee yet? AFter reading Cawley's
> method here, I wonder if using it we could make radix-sorts the
> default sort method.
Perl6 ought to support pluggable sort algorithms, just as Perl
now supports pluggable comparison functions.
--
John Po
lope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: from rt158.private.realtime.co.uk (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[127.0.0.1])by rt158 (8.11.0/8.8.7)
with ESMTP id eATExu511390;Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:59:56 GMT
From: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FWP] sorting text in human-or
34 matches
Mail list logo
