|XP is just a number|
Re: non-exact regexp matchesby wufnik (Friar)
|on Jun 23, 2004 at 18:24 UTC||Need Help??|
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?
-- in the world of the mules there are no rules --