MathGroup Archive 2002

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

RE: Re: Pattern Matching in Lists

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg35856] RE: [mg35854] Re: Pattern Matching in Lists
  • From: "DrBob" <majort at cox-internet.com>
  • Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 06:00:07 -0400 (EDT)
  • Reply-to: <drbob at bigfoot.com>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Hagihara,

Well... that method is more than ten times slower than any other method
suggested, almost 300 times slower than the fastest.  Here are timings
(in seconds) for 13 methods on a list of 2 million entries.  Your method
is last in the list:

{1.297, 0.578, 0.547, 0.203, 0.047, 0.125, 0.11, 0.546, 0.516, 0.672,
0.078,
0.047, 13.906}

Bobby

-----Original Message-----
From: Daitaro Hagihara [mailto:daiyanh at earthlink.net] 
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
Subject: [mg35856] [mg35854] Re: Pattern Matching in Lists

It seemed strange that no one mentioned pattern matching construct
of _?.

Count[{1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,0},
_?((t=#==0&&i==1;i=#;t)&)]

==> 4

If different tests are needed on the same data set, it'd be advised
to make test functions such as f[x_]:=(t=x==0&&i==1;i=x;t) and run
Count[w,_?f].

The reason why {___,1,0,___} doesn't work is because patterns are
matched elementwise.

DH





  • Prev by Date: Re: PDF and postscript
  • Next by Date: Re: PseudoInverse of mathematica
  • Previous by thread: Re: Pattern Matching in Lists
  • Next by thread: PseudoInverse of mathematica