I've tried searching this but have yet to find something that suits anything close to my needs. I'm trying to create a Autocad LISP that takes a text file, which is a list of comma-separated values, and place a block at coordinates defined by the list. BUT, only for items on the list where the last entry starts with "HP"
So that's sounds a bit complex, but the text file is basically a UTM survey output, and looks like this:
1000,Easting,Northing,Elevation,Identifier
1001,Easting,Northing,Elevation,Identifier
Etc.
The identifier is a variety of values, but I want to extract the Northing,Easting,Elevation, and insert a block (this last part I've got) at that location when the identifier begins with "HP". The list can be long and the number of HPs can be 1 or 5000. I'm assuming there's a "for x=1:end, do" type of loop than can be made that reuses the same variables over and over.
I'm a newbie to LISP so I'm stuck in that spot between "here are I've-never-programmed-before tutorials to make hello world" and "here is a library of the 3000 different commands in alphabetical order"
I believe the functions you are needing to solve this question are open, read-line or read-char, close,strlen, and substr. The first four functions relate to AutoLisp writing and reading a file. The last two functions manipulate the string variables that were pulled from the file. With them, you can find the "HP" within the text. To loop through the same code, three come to my mind: repeat, while, and foreach.
For a list of variables to quickly reference with their descriptions, here's a good starting point. This particular page has the information broken up by category instead of alphabetical order.
https://help.solidworks.com/2022/English/api/draftsightlispreference/html/lisp_functions_overview.htm
Here are a few tutorials where AutoLisp code is used to write and read other files:
https://www.afralisp.net/autolisp/tutorials/file-handling.php
https://www.afralisp.net/autolisp/tutorials/external-data.php
Lastly, here's an example of AutoLisp writing and reading attributes from and to blocks.
https://github.com/GitHubUser5376/AttributeImportExport
You can use Lee-Mac's Reacd-CSV function to get a list of the csv values.
And for the "HP" detection yes you might have to go through(using loop options mentioned above like while, repeat,foreach) each and use
(substr Identifier 1 2)
to validate
Related
It is known that default printer can be confusing wrt lists because of no output for empty lists and 3 different notations being mixed (, vs (x;y;z) vs 1 2 3) and not obvious indentation/columnization (which is apparently optimized for table data). I am currently using -3! but it is still not ideal.
Is there a ready-made pretty-printer that has consistent uniform output format (basically what I am used to in any other language where list is not special)?
I've started using .j.j for string outputs in error messages more recently in preference to -3!. Mainly I think it is easier to parse in a text log, but also doesn't truncate in the same way.
It still transforms atoms and lists differently so it might not exactly meet your needs, if you really want that you could compose it with the old "ensure this is a list" trick:
myPrinter:('[.j.j;(),])
You might need to supply some examples to better explain your issues and your use-case for pretty-printing.
In general -3! is the most clear visual representation of the data. It is the stringified equivalent to another popular display method which is 0N!.
The parse function is useful for understanding how the interpreter reads/executes commands but I don't think that will be useful in your case
I am trying to convert my documents into vector-space format using doc2mat
On the website, it says I can use my specified text file where words are white-space separated or on multiple lines. So, I use some code similar to this one:
./doc2mat -mystoplist=stopword.txt -skipnumeric mydocuments.txt myvectorspace.txt
However, when I check the output .clabel file, it still has stop words that's in stopword.txt.
I really do not know how to do this. Someone help me out please? Thank you!
There's one important thing I should remember: I should include ALL the unwanted words in my stop list. This is somewhat difficult since there's always some variations available...
For example, if I want to exclude method I add it to my list. However, the resulting vocabulary may also contain method since there are words like methodist, methods, etc. Then doc2mat by default stems these words and I will still get method in the output.
Another thing is to make sure that "-nostop" option must be provided for user-specified stop list.
I am defining a variable in the beginning of my source code in MATLAB. Now I would like to know at which lines this variable effects something. In other words, I would like to see all lines in which that variable is read out. This wish does not only include all accesses in the current function, but also possible accesses in sub-functions that use this variable as an input argument. In this way, I can see in a quick way where my change of this variable takes any influence.
Is there any possibility to do so in MATLAB? A graphical marking of the corresponding lines would be nice but a command line output might be even more practical.
You may always use "Find Files" to search for a certain keyword or expression. In my R2012a/Windows version is in Edit > Find Files..., with the keyboard shortcut [CTRL] + [SHIFT] + [F].
The result will be a list of lines where the searched string is found, in all the files found in the specified folder. Please check out the options in the search dialog for more details and flexibility.
Later edit: thanks to #zinjaai, I noticed that #tc88 required that this tool should track the effect of the name of the variable inside the functions/subfunctions. I think this is:
very difficult to achieve. The problem of running trough all the possible values and branching on every possible conditional expression is... well is hard. I think is halting-problem-hard.
in 90% of the case the assumption that the output of a function is influenced by the input is true. But the input and the output are part of the same statement (assigning the result of a function) so looking for where the variable is used as argument should suffice to identify what output variables are affected..
There are perverse cases where functions will alter arguments that are handle-type (because the argument is not copied, but referenced). This side-effect will break the assumption 2, and is one of the main reasons why 1. Outlining the cases when these side effects take place is again, hard, and is better to assume that all of them are modified.
Some other cases are inherently undecidable, because they don't depend on the computer states, but on the state of the "outside world". Example: suppose one calls uigetfile. The function returns a char type when the user selects a file, and a double type for the case when the user chooses not to select a file. Obviously the two cases will be treated differently. How could you know which variables are created/modified before the user deciding?
In conclusion: I think that human intuition, plus the MATLAB Debugger (for run time), and the Find Files (for quick search where a variable is used) and depfun (for quick identification of function dependence) is way cheaper. But I would like to be wrong. :-)
My goal is coming up with a script to track the point a line was added, even if the line is subsequently modified or moved around (both of which confuse traditional vcs 'blame' scripts. I've done some minor background research (see bottom) but didn't find anything useful. I have a concept for how to proceed but the runtime would be atrocious (there's a factorial involved).
The two missing features are tracking edited-in-place lines separate from a deletion-and-addition of that line, and tracking entire functions moved around so they're in different hunks. For those experienced with diff but unfamiliar with the terminology, a subsequence is a contiguous group of + or - lines, with a type of either delete (all -), add (all +), or replace (a combination). I need more information, on moves and edit-in-place lines, vaguely alluded to in an entry on c2: DiffAlgorithm (paragraph starts with "My favorite mode"). Does anyone know what that is? (seems to be based on Tichy, see bottom.)
Here's more info on the two missing features:
no concept of a change on a line, (a fourth type, something like edit-in-place). In this hunk, the parent of 'bc' is 'b' but 'd' is new and isn't a descendant of 'b':
a
-b
+bc
+d
The workaround for this isn't too complicated, if the position of edits is the same (just an expanded version of markup_instraline_changes but comparing edit distance on all equal-sized subsets of old and new lines.
no concept of "moving" code that preserves the ownership of the lines, e.g. this diff shouldn't alter the ownership of "line", although its position changes.
a
-line
c
+line
This could be dealt with in the same way but with much worse runtime (instead of only checking single blocks marked 'replace', you'd need to check Levenshtein distance between all added against all removed lines) and with likely false positives (some, like whitespace-only lines, aren't relevant to my problem).
Research I've done: reading about gestalt pattern matching (Ratcliff and Obershelp, used in Python's difflib) and An O(ND) Difference Algorithm and its Variations (EW Myers).
After posting the question, I found references to Tichy84 which appears to be The string-to-string correction problem with block moves (which I haven't read yet) according to Walter Tichy's paper a year later on RCS
You appear to be interested in origin tracking, the problem of tracing where a line came from.
Ideally, you'd instrument the editor to remember how things were edited, and store the edits with the text in your repository, thus solving the problem trivially, but none of us software engineers seem to be smart enough to implement this simple idea.
As a weak substitute, one can look at a sequence of source code revisions from the repository and reconstruct a "plausible" history of changes. This is what you seem to be doing by proposing the use of "diff". As you've noted, diff doesn't understand the idea of "moving" or "copying".
SD Smart Differencer tools compare source text by parsing the text according to the langauge it is in, discovering the code structures, and computing least-Levensthein differences in terms of programming language constructs (identifiers, expressions, statements, blocks, classes, ...) and abstract editing operators "insert", "delete", "copy", "move" and "rename identifier within a scope". They produce diff-like output, a little richer because they tell you line/column -> line/column with different editing operations.
Obviously the "move" and "copy" edits are the ones most interesting to you in terms of tracking specific lines (well, specific language constructs). Our experience is that code goes through lots of copy and edits, too, which I suspect won't surprise you.
These tools are in Beta, and are presently available for COBOL, Java and C#. Lots of other langauges are in the pipe, because the SmartDifferencer is built on top of a langauge-parameterized infrastructure, DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit, which has quite a number of already existing, robust langauge grammars.
I think the idea of what amount of editing a line that can be done while it remains a descendent of some previously written line is very subjective, and based on context, both things that a computer cannot work with. You'd have to specify some sort of configurable minimum similarity on lines in your program I think... The other problem is that it is entirely possible for two identical lines to be written completely independently (for example incrementing the value of some variable), and this will be be quite a common thing, so your desired algorithm won't really give truthful or useful information about a line quite often.
I would like to suggest an algorithm for this though (which makes tons of hopefully obvious assumptions by the way) so here goes:
Convert both texts to lists of lines
Copy the lists and Strip all whitespace from inside of each line
Delete blank lines from both lists
Repeat
Do a Levenshtein distance from the old to new lists ...
... keeping all intermediate data
Find all lines in the new text that were matched with old lines
Mark the line in both new/old original lists as having been matched
Delete the line from the new text (the copy)
Optional: If some matched lines are in a contiguous sequence ...
... in either original text assign them to a grouping as well!
Until there is nothing left but unmatchable lines in the new text
Group together sequences of unmatched lines in both old and new texts ...
... which are contiguous in the original text
Attribute each with the line match before and after
Run through all groups in old text
If any match before and after attributes with new text groups for each
//If they are inside the same area basically
Concatenate all the lines in both groups (separately and in order)
Include a character to represent where the line breaks are
Repeat
Do a Levenshtein distance on these concatenations
If there are any significantly similar subsequences found
//I can't really define this but basically a high proportion
//of matches throughout all lines involved on both sides
For each matched subsequence
Find suitable newline spots to delimit the subsequence
Mark these lines matched in the original text
//Warning splitting+merging of lines possible
//No 1-to-1 correspondence of lines here!
Delete the subsequence from the new text group concat
Delete also from the new text working list of lines
Until there are no significantly similar subsequences found
Optional: Regroup based on remaining unmatched lines and repeat last step
//Not sure if there's any point in trying that at the moment
Concatenate the ENTIRE list of whitespaced-removed lines in the old text
Concatenate the lines in new text also (should only be unmatched ones left)
//Newline character added in both cases
Repeat
Do Levenshtein distance on these concatenations
Match similar subsequences in the same way as earlier on
//Don't need to worry deleting from list of new lines any more though
//Similarity criteria should be a fair bit stricter here to avoid
// spurious matchings. Already matched lines in old text might have
// even higher strictness, since all of copy/edit/move would be rare
While you still have matchings
//Anything left unmatched in the old text is deleted stuff
//Anything left unmatched in the new text is newly written by the author
Print out some output to show all the comparing results!
Well, hopefully you can see the basics of what I mean with that completely untested algorithm. Find obvious matches first, and verbatim moves of chunks of decreasing size, then compare stuff that's likely to be similar, then look for anything else which is similar, but both modified and moved: probably just coincidentally similar.
Well, if you try implementing this, tell me how it works out, and what details you changed, and what kind of assignments you made to the various variables involved... I expect there will be some test cases where it works brilliantly and others where it just abyssmally fails due to some massive oversight. The idea is that most stuff will be matched before you get to the inefficient final loop, and indeed the previous one
I've translated Double-Metaphone into ActionScript3 and I want to test it (obviously) before I release the source to ... um ... the open.
I'm looking for a long list of names with the primary and secondary codes. Google does not find anything except one list with pairs of names (presumably they should match).
Thanks
You could find someone else's double metaphone implementation, run it on the same long list of words, and compare the results to your own.
For long lists of words, I like infochimps. They have lots of word lists, like this one of 350,000 english words or this one of place names, and many more.
Here are implementations you can compare your results against. Here is an online example, except that it tests only one word at a time - I guess you'll have to download and run one of the scripts to test a large list of words.
For each word, two codes will be returned; you'll probably want to test that both codes returned match the ones returned of another implementation. You probably know that the reference implementation is here with full source code here, but including the links anyway for others' benefit.