|
|
| XP is just a number | |
| PerlMonks |
Comment on |
| ( #3333=superdoc: print w/ replies, xml ) | 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?
...wufnik -- in the world of the mules there are no rules -- In reply to Re: non-exact regexp matches
by wufnik
|
|