in reply to non-exact regexp matches
what you/we really want is an implementation
of the below - an optimal way to approximately match
regular expressions. why this rather than the others above?
none of the above are able to compare "edit distances" *for regular expressions* in the way the Text::Levenshtein etc allow the comparison of these edit distances for strings. instead, they quite effectively hardwire a greater degree of flexibility into the patterns that can be recognized. but to do this properly, you need to 'penalize' insertions/deletions in your regexp in the same way you do for sequences. the above paper outlines a way of doing this. as for implementation - I don't know.
is there something around the BioPerl guys might know of?
1: Bull Math Biol. 1989;51(1):5-37. Approximate matching of regular expressions. Myers EW, Miller W.
none of the above are able to compare "edit distances" *for regular expressions* in the way the Text::Levenshtein etc allow the comparison of these edit distances for strings. instead, they quite effectively hardwire a greater degree of flexibility into the patterns that can be recognized. but to do this properly, you need to 'penalize' insertions/deletions in your regexp in the same way you do for sequences. the above paper outlines a way of doing this. as for implementation - I don't know.
is there something around the BioPerl guys might know of?
...wufnik
-- in the world of the mules there are no rules --
-- in the world of the mules there are no rules --
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: non-exact regexp matches
by vinforget (Beadle) on Jun 23, 2004 at 19:01 UTC |
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom