| [reply] |
Could this be related to exercise 4.4 of exercise solutions (part of a Perl course taught at CNTS - Computational Linguistics at the University of Antwerp)?The problem to solve is: Write a program that reads text from standard input until end-of-file, and then prints the frequency of each bigram that occurs in the text. And this without hashes. If that is indeed the "solution" to this problem, it is not working.
CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James My blog: Imperial Deltronics
| [reply] |
"explain this code"
No.
Best regards, Karl
Update:... doesn't this look better...?
Update2:... and your data...?
Please see the recommendations above how to continue...
«The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»
| [reply]
[d/l] |
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
Second CountZero's objection to lack of input data.
However, when I run your code, supplying a test file (multi-char strings, some of which satisfy either of two contradictory definitions of bigrams* and some non-bigram strings such as nobigram, each separated by 2 newlines), your code returns " : 1" for pairs of words -- each concatenated with the following word (except in the case of "nobigram" which is first concatenated with the preceding word and then with the following word).
# output:
Bigrams
aabaaacc : 1
ccnobigram : 1
nobigramabcda : 1
abcdabcdaaaa : 1
bcdaaaanobigram : 1
nobigrambbhbbbb : 1
bbhbbbbbbb : 1
bbbaba : 1
abaaaaabbb : 1
aaaabbbcccccccccc : 1
cccccccccccbbbaaaccc : 1
cbbbaaacccccbbaaccc : 1
I cannot reproduce your "loop is ended after splitting EXCEPT (and then not perfectly) by removing the doubled curly braces at Lns 9-10 and 22-23, in which case only a single instance of the final two words of sample data are returned (along with the
" : 1"). (Update: That's not a correct count for either definition cited for a bigram)
As to "why found is used," it seems possible, in the overly limited context you've provided, that it's intended to be a counter -- a variable in which to stash the number of bigrams found. I realize that seems exessivly obvious, but, IMO, it's the only obvious possible-answer.
In any case, if counting is your intent, please see http://search.cpan.org/~emorgan/Lingua-EN-Bigram-0.01/lib/Lingua/EN/Bigram.pm (or some fork for the language in which your interests lie).
*Definitions vary:
- Wikikpedia says "A bigram or digram is every sequence of two adjacent elements in a string of tokens, which are typically letters, syllables, or words; they are n-grams for n=2.
while
- The Free OnLine Dictionary defines a bigram as a two-letter word (FOL is NOT, IMO, a reliable source, but Merriam-Webster and others define bigram only for those using paid access or their (one-shot) free trial).
For clarity, here is the content (verbatim) of the text file:
aabaaa
cc
nobigram
abcda
bcdaaaa
nobigram
bbhbbbb
bbb
aba
aaaabbb
cccccccccc
cbbbaaaccc
ccbbaaccc
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
| [reply] |
wanted to know why while loop is ended after splitting and why found is used
:) Curious, because this isn't what you asked for :)
:) but you can find out by understanding what each part of the program does, and inserting print/Data::Dumper parts at various points in the program
If you limit the input while Dumper-ing it should be easier to follow
| [reply] |