Almost done english version
This commit is contained in:
Yann Esposito (Yogsototh)
parent
b0c7d7c6a0
commit
735a28f18b
3 changed files with 215 additions and 38 deletions
|
|
@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ The source <sc>xml</sc> was in the following general format:
|
|||
and the destination format was in the following general format:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="xml">
|
||||
<item name="Menu">
|
||||
<item name="Menu0">
|
||||
<value>
|
||||
<item name="menu">
|
||||
<value>
|
||||
|
|
@ -145,16 +145,75 @@ I thought about how to resolve the problem but with the eyes of a *pragmatic eng
|
|||
|
||||
This is the second sentence that was plainly wrong. I started in the wrong direction. And the workflow did not work from this entry point.
|
||||
|
||||
## Thinking
|
||||
## Think
|
||||
|
||||
## spoiler
|
||||
After some times, I just stopped to work. Tell myself *"it is enough, now, I must finish it!"*.
|
||||
I took a sheet of paper, a pen and began to write down some trees.
|
||||
|
||||
In the end, the program should be a simple list of search and replace:
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s/something/something else/g
|
||||
I first renamed `<item name="Menu">` by simpler name `M` for example.
|
||||
I obtained something like:
|
||||
|
||||
<%= blogimage('formal_DCR_tree.png', 'The source tree') %>
|
||||
|
||||
and
|
||||
|
||||
<%= blogimage('formal_Menu_tree.png', 'The destination tree') %>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
And I made myself the following reflexion:
|
||||
|
||||
Considering Tree Edit Distance, each unitary transformation of tree correspond to a simple search and replace on my XML source.
|
||||
I did a program which generate automatically the weight in a matrix of each edit distance.
|
||||
We consider three atomic transformations on trees:
|
||||
|
||||
- *substitution*: renaming a node
|
||||
- *insertion*: adding a node
|
||||
- *deletion*: remove a node
|
||||
|
||||
The particularity with trees, is that, removing a node, do the following:
|
||||
all children of this node, became children of its father.
|
||||
|
||||
An example:
|
||||
|
||||
<pre class="twilight">
|
||||
r - x - a
|
||||
\ \
|
||||
\ b
|
||||
y - c
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
If you delete the `x` node, you obtain
|
||||
|
||||
<pre class="twilight">
|
||||
a
|
||||
/
|
||||
r - b
|
||||
\
|
||||
y - c
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
And look at what it implies when you write it in <sc>xml</sc>:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="xml">
|
||||
<r>
|
||||
<x>
|
||||
<a>value for a</a>
|
||||
<b>vblue for b</b>
|
||||
</x>
|
||||
<y>
|
||||
<c>value for c</c>
|
||||
</y>
|
||||
</r>
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
It is not only possible but I believe it is the best way of doing this.
|
||||
Then deleting all `x` nodes is equivalent to pass the <sc>xml</sc> via the following search and replace:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s/<\/?x>//g
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, if there exists a one state deterministic transducer to transform the source tree to the destination tree.
|
||||
I can transform the <sc>xml</sc> from one format to another with just a simple list of search and replace directives.
|
||||
|
||||
# Solution
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -209,11 +268,11 @@ s/R/V/g
|
|||
Adapted to XML it becomes:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s!</?contenu>!!g
|
||||
s!<enfant>!<item name="menu">!g
|
||||
s!</enfant>!<item>!g
|
||||
s!</?rubrique>!<value>!g
|
||||
s!</rubrique>!</value>!g
|
||||
s%</?contenu>%%g
|
||||
s%<enfant>%<item name="menu">%g
|
||||
s%</enfant>%<item>%g
|
||||
s%</?rubrique>%<value>%g
|
||||
s%</rubrique>%</value>%g
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
That is all.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Voici le format général du <sc>xml</sc> source :
|
|||
et le format d'arrivé est celui-ci :
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="xml">
|
||||
<item name="Menu">
|
||||
<item name="Menu0">
|
||||
<value>
|
||||
<item name="menu">
|
||||
<value>
|
||||
|
|
@ -150,16 +150,75 @@ J'ai d'abord pensé à comment résoudre le problème mais avec des yeux d'*ing
|
|||
|
||||
C'est la deuxième phrase qui est complètement fausse. Parce que j'avais mal commencé et que cette méthodologie de travail ne fonctionne pas lorsque l'on part vraiment mal.
|
||||
|
||||
## La réflexion
|
||||
## Réfléchir
|
||||
|
||||
## spoiler
|
||||
After some times, I just stopped to work. Tell myself *"it is enough, now, I must finish it!"*.
|
||||
I took a sheet of paper, a pen and began to write down some trees.
|
||||
|
||||
In the end, the program should be a simple list of search and replace:
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s/something/something else/g
|
||||
I first renamed `<item name="Menu">` by simpler name `M` for example.
|
||||
I obtained something like:
|
||||
|
||||
<%= blogimage('formal_DCR_tree.png', 'The source tree') %>
|
||||
|
||||
and
|
||||
|
||||
<%= blogimage('formal_Menu_tree.png', 'The destination tree') %>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
And I made myself the following reflexion:
|
||||
|
||||
Considering Tree Edit Distance, each unitary transformation of tree correspond to a simple search and replace on my XML source.
|
||||
I did a program which generate automatically the weight in a matrix of each edit distance.
|
||||
We consider three atomic transformations on trees:
|
||||
|
||||
- *substitution*: renaming a node
|
||||
- *insertion*: adding a node
|
||||
- *deletion*: remove a node
|
||||
|
||||
The particularity with trees, is that, removing a node, do the following:
|
||||
all children of this node, became children of its father.
|
||||
|
||||
An example:
|
||||
|
||||
<pre class="twilight">
|
||||
r - x - a
|
||||
\ \
|
||||
\ b
|
||||
y - c
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
If you delete the `x` node, you obtain
|
||||
|
||||
<pre class="twilight">
|
||||
a
|
||||
/
|
||||
r - b
|
||||
\
|
||||
y - c
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
And look at what it implies when you write it in <sc>xml</sc>:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="xml">
|
||||
<r>
|
||||
<x>
|
||||
<a>value for a</a>
|
||||
<b>vblue for b</b>
|
||||
</x>
|
||||
<y>
|
||||
<c>value for c</c>
|
||||
</y>
|
||||
</r>
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
It is not only possible but I believe it is the best way of doing this.
|
||||
Then deleting all `x` nodes is equivalent to pass the <sc>xml</sc> via the following search and replace:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s/<\/?x>//g
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, if there exists a one state deterministic transducer to transform the source tree to the destination tree.
|
||||
I can transform the <sc>xml</sc> from one format to another with just a simple list of search and replace directives.
|
||||
|
||||
# Solution
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -214,11 +273,11 @@ s/R/V/g
|
|||
Adapted to XML it becomes:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s!</?contenu>!!g
|
||||
s!<enfant>!<item name="menu">!g
|
||||
s!</enfant>!<item>!g
|
||||
s!</?rubrique>!<value>!g
|
||||
s!</rubrique>!</value>!g
|
||||
s%</?contenu>%%g
|
||||
s%<enfant>%<item name="menu">%g
|
||||
s%</enfant>%<item>%g
|
||||
s%</?rubrique>%<value>%g
|
||||
s%</rubrique>%</value>%g
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
That is all.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ fr: Finalement, le problème fut résolu en moins de 20 minutes.
|
|||
en: I believe the important lesson is to remember that the most efficient methodology to resolve this *pragmatic* problem was the *theoretical* one.
|
||||
en: And therefore, argues opposing science, theory to pragmatism and efficiency are fallacies.
|
||||
fr: Je pense que la leçon à retenir de cette expérience est de se souvenir que la méthodologie la plus efficace pour résoudre ce problème *pragamtique* était la méthode *théorique*.
|
||||
fr: Et par conséquent, les arguments qui opposent la science et la théories au pragmatisme et à l'efficacité sont faux.
|
||||
fr: Ça ne signifie pas que la méthode théorique est toujours la meilleure, mais en tout cas, il ne faut pas l'écarter.
|
||||
|
||||
newcorps
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ en: and the destination format was in the following general format:
|
|||
fr: et le format d'arrivé est celui-ci :
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="xml">
|
||||
<item name="Menu">
|
||||
<item name="Menu0">
|
||||
<value>
|
||||
<item name="menu">
|
||||
<value>
|
||||
|
|
@ -212,17 +212,76 @@ fr: > Commençons à écrire le code maintenant.
|
|||
en: This is the second sentence that was plainly wrong. I started in the wrong direction. And the workflow did not work from this entry point.
|
||||
fr: C'est la deuxième phrase qui est complètement fausse. Parce que j'avais mal commencé et que cette méthodologie de travail ne fonctionne pas lorsque l'on part vraiment mal.
|
||||
|
||||
en: ## Thinking
|
||||
fr: ## La réflexion
|
||||
en: ## Think
|
||||
fr: ## Réfléchir
|
||||
|
||||
## spoiler
|
||||
After some times, I just stopped to work. Tell myself *"it is enough, now, I must finish it!"*.
|
||||
I took a sheet of paper, a pen and began to write down some trees.
|
||||
|
||||
In the end, the program should be a simple list of search and replace:
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s/something/something else/g
|
||||
I first renamed `<item name="Menu">` by simpler name `M` for example.
|
||||
I obtained something like:
|
||||
|
||||
<%= blogimage('formal_DCR_tree.png', 'The source tree') %>
|
||||
|
||||
and
|
||||
|
||||
<%= blogimage('formal_Menu_tree.png', 'The destination tree') %>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
And I made myself the following reflexion:
|
||||
|
||||
Considering Tree Edit Distance, each unitary transformation of tree correspond to a simple search and replace on my XML source.
|
||||
I did a program which generate automatically the weight in a matrix of each edit distance.
|
||||
We consider three atomic transformations on trees:
|
||||
|
||||
- *substitution*: renaming a node
|
||||
- *insertion*: adding a node
|
||||
- *deletion*: remove a node
|
||||
|
||||
The particularity with trees, is that, removing a node, do the following:
|
||||
all children of this node, became children of its father.
|
||||
|
||||
An example:
|
||||
|
||||
<pre class="twilight">
|
||||
r - x - a
|
||||
\ \
|
||||
\ b
|
||||
y - c
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
If you delete the `x` node, you obtain
|
||||
|
||||
<pre class="twilight">
|
||||
a
|
||||
/
|
||||
r - b
|
||||
\
|
||||
y - c
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
And look at what it implies when you write it in <sc>xml</sc>:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="xml">
|
||||
<r>
|
||||
<x>
|
||||
<a>value for a</a>
|
||||
<b>vblue for b</b>
|
||||
</x>
|
||||
<y>
|
||||
<c>value for c</c>
|
||||
</y>
|
||||
</r>
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
It is not only possible but I believe it is the best way of doing this.
|
||||
Then deleting all `x` nodes is equivalent to pass the <sc>xml</sc> via the following search and replace:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s/<\/?x>//g
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, if there exists a one state deterministic transducer to transform the source tree to the destination tree.
|
||||
I can transform the <sc>xml</sc> from one format to another with just a simple list of search and replace directives.
|
||||
|
||||
# Solution
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -277,11 +336,11 @@ s/R/V/g
|
|||
Adapted to XML it becomes:
|
||||
|
||||
<code class="perl">
|
||||
s!</?contenu>!!g
|
||||
s!<enfant>!<item name="menu">!g
|
||||
s!</enfant>!<item>!g
|
||||
s!</?rubrique>!<value>!g
|
||||
s!</rubrique>!</value>!g
|
||||
s%</?contenu>%%g
|
||||
s%<enfant>%<item name="menu">%g
|
||||
s%</enfant>%<item>%g
|
||||
s%</?rubrique>%<value>%g
|
||||
s%</rubrique>%</value>%g
|
||||
</code>
|
||||
|
||||
That is all.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue