char str[100]; // please no flame on fixed buffer size
while (!feof(file))
{
fscanf("%99s", str);
…
}
I have tried to use Ruby’s scanf("%s") but found it severely broken
(as per my task)–it discards the rest of the input up to the
newline. I currently use the following approach, which I find ugly:
while not $stdin.eof? do
words = $stdin.gets().scan(/[^\s]+/)
words.each do |w|
…
end
end
It takes me to write an inner loop and reads the entire string into
memory and then splits it into array of words… Duh!
My application is not in any case a time- or memory-critical, nor did
I measured to find the performance bottleneck… however, I desire for
the enlightenment.
Please show me the Ruby way!
Cheers,
Alex
PS: Yes, I’ve searched the web, tutorials, FAQs, cookbooks, etc.
before posting this. No luck.
purpose programming language.
You thought correctly. But when you talk about reading a word at
at time from a text file, you’re talking about text processing.
The point is that languages (including Ruby) that were designed
to be very good at processing text usually read a line at a time,
not a word at a time. (A language that is very good at processing
text can still be a general purpose language.) Reading a word at
a time seems to me to be odd and unnecessary, and I do a lot of
text processing. However, here’s one way to do it. (It would be
a lot more efficient to read by lines.)
class IO
def get_word
word = nil
while c = self.read(1)
if c =~ /\s/
break if word
else
word||=""
word << c
end
end
word
end
end
File.open(‘data’){|file|
while w = file.get_word
p w
end
}
loops anyway)? Looks very odd to me…
Well, you can use #getc and implement the word matching logic
yourself. But that is more tedious and it’s also questionable whether
that will be as efficient. And since a line break is a word boundary
anyway the nested loop approach yields the proper result (aka sequence
of words) as the other approach. So why bother to create a word
iterating solution just to get rid of one level of loop nesting?
I’d probably encapsulate the word reading in a module so the
class IO
additional goody
class String
include WordIO
end
Kind regards
robert
Very sophisticated.
Since the o.p. wants whitespace as the word-separator,
the reg.exp. should be changed to /\S+/.
But, dang it all, I’m gonna say you’re cheating because
you’re still reading lines behind the scenes!
Reading lines and breaking them into words is a lot
easier than reading characters and constructing words.
But, dang it all, I’m gonna say you’re cheating because
you’re still reading lines behind the scenes!
Reading lines and breaking them into words is a lot
easier than reading characters and constructing words.
Yeah, that is my point. I only see a way to do this efficiently (w/o
reading the whole lines) by writing the routine in C and then using it
in Ruby.
Anyway, I probably won’t bother, since there is no real problem–just
curiosity of mine.
If your definition of “word” is different (i.e. non whitespace
characters) you need a different regexp (for example /\S+/).
If you want to read to word boundaries only it becomes more difficult.
This is more or less the same code as I use, maybe a bit more
readable, tough.
So there is no way in Ruby to read words w/o reading the whole line of
input and then splitting/scanning the line (which takes us two nested
loops anyway)? Looks very odd to me…
I thought Ruby is not just a text processing tool, but a general
a lot more efficient to read by lines.)
end
ARGF.extend WordIO
robert
Very sophisticated.
Since the o.p. wants whitespace as the word-separator,
the reg.exp. should be changed to /\S+/.
See also Bertram’s remark. Btw, that’s probably also the reason why
this is not in the standard: there is probably no one size fits all
definition of “word”. We have seen at least two so far and I reckon
there are more.
But, dang it all, I’m gonna say you’re cheating because
you’re still reading lines behind the scenes!
But I said the implementation can be exchanged.
Reading lines and breaking them into words is a lot
easier than reading characters and constructing words.
Awk is a very popular tool for text processing, but there is no
way to make it treat a sequence of whitespace characters as a
record-separator. So in awk, as in Ruby, text is almost always
read a line at a time.
I thought Ruby is not just a text processing tool, but a general
purpose programming language. Anyway, it would be nice to have a
solution for this problem as compact and flexible as C++ example I’ve
provided. What if scanf() didn’t discard the rest of the line… but
now is too late to fix it. :-/
end
So there is no way in Ruby to read words w/o reading the whole line of
input and then splitting/scanning the line (which takes us two nested
loops anyway)? Looks very odd to me…
Alex
Awk is a very popular tool for text processing, but there is no
way to make it treat a sequence of whitespace characters as a
record-separator. So in awk, as in Ruby, text is almost always
read a line at a time.
Gawk added the ability to set the record-separator to a
regular expression:
Am Montag, 17. Sep 2007, 04:19:53 +0900 schrieb Ari B.:
On Sep 16, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Alex S. wrote:
Please show me the Ruby way!
Maybe you could try this:
a = gets.chomp #=> “My name is Ari”
words = a.split(/ /) #=> [“My”, “name”, “is”, “Ari”]
This isn’t actually elaborate as it doesn’t recognize tabs
or multiple whitespace. It is even longer than
words = gets.split
With no argument or nil, String#split uses $; what normally
is nil, too. Then, split uses something like %r/[ \t\n\r\v\f]+/.
You may easily read whole lines; they shouldn’t become too
long. Reading the first word before the user typed enter
would need to tweak terminal settings. Not worth the effort
in most cases.
But, dang it all, I’m gonna say you’re cheating because
you’re still reading lines behind the scenes!
Reading lines and breaking them into words is a lot
easier than reading characters and constructing words.
Yeah, that is my point. I only see a way to do this efficiently (w/o
reading the whole lines) by writing the routine in C and then using it
in Ruby.
Why do you think Ruby solutions are inefficient? If you fear that
reading individual characters is slow in Ruby: even if you use #getc
Ruby will do buffered IO (I’m not sure about $stdin though).
Anyway, I probably won’t bother, since there is no real problem–just
curiosity of mine.
If you are curious why not just take the suggested implementations and
benchmark them. Benchmarking is actually pretty easy in Ruby because
there is module Benchmark already (plus some more advanced variants).
Thanks all for discussing,
Thank you for bringing up interesting subjects!
Kind regards
robert
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
