Is this Regular Expression for UTF-8 Correct??
in [MFC]
|
From: Peter Olcott on 27 May 2010 14:28 On 5/27/2010 1:17 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:cpadnRRc3fZ6MGPWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> Peter, >>> I notice that you have not delivered on your promise and have not posted >>> your code. The 27th was chosen because it is a day *after* the week you >>> stated that you needed to complete the code. >>> >>> Have you posted the code and I have simply missed it?? >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> >> >> Something came up and I had to change priorities it is not quite done yet. >> I have been working on it every day. Hector posted some code that looked >> very good. It looks very well written and that it would be somewhat faster >> than my code. >> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de/utf-8/decoder/dfa/ >> >> When I post the link to my code you will be able to see that my priorities >> are a little different with the code that I write. I don't try to write >> the fastest possible code, I try to write the fastest possible code within >> the higher priority of the clearest possible code. >> >> It is very much easier to verify that my code is correct than it is to >> verify that the code Hector posted is correct. I would have to say that it >> is probably the clearest code that can be written within the higher >> priority of fast code. > > > Peter, > If you are attempting to write the clearest possible code, why do you > continually obsess over the "fastest possible" when referring to algorithms > and code? I already explained that completely above, please re-read what I said. > I think it's obvious to most here that you really don't know what > your priorities really are or at least they seem to change as often as the > wind blows. > > There is a book called "Writing Solid Code" (Microsoft Press) that is a > short, easy read but very good on things like this. I suggest that you pick > it up if you have time and take a look at it. In particular, there is a > section where the author suggests that you write down your priorities in > order to ensure that you are actually working toward your highest priorities > first because some of your priorities may be mutually exclusive. > > PS: It looks like you owe Hector $50... ;-) Not at all the bet was the I would not provide anything at all and I have provided much more than nothing at all long ago. > > -Pete > >
From: Pete Delgado on 27 May 2010 14:54 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message news:1eidnU5ZwMMsJGPWnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > On 5/27/2010 1:17 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >> news:cpadnRRc3fZ6MGPWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> PS: It looks like you owe Hector $50... ;-) > > Not at all the bet was the I would not provide anything at all and I have > provided much more than nothing at all long ago. Actually, the bet was "I got $50 bucks on NEVER producing anything representing his claims." in response to my post asking you to show your code. It would be rather unethical of you to now claim that the web page you posted that cites your alleged results for your "product" is the code that represents your claims. You can twist it anyway you want, but I think that it is abundantly clear from the context of the thread exactly what Hector was asking for. -Pete
From: Peter Olcott on 27 May 2010 15:20 On 5/27/2010 1:54 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:1eidnU5ZwMMsJGPWnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> On 5/27/2010 1:17 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>> news:cpadnRRc3fZ6MGPWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> PS: It looks like you owe Hector $50... ;-) >> >> Not at all the bet was the I would not provide anything at all and I have >> provided much more than nothing at all long ago. > > Actually, the bet was "I got $50 bucks on NEVER producing anything > representing his claims." And I accepted this bet on the sole basis that I had already won it before the bet was posted because I had already provided the design for my method, thus unequivocally meeting the specific literal terms of the bet: (anything at all). It was and continues to be completely clear that I had only accepted the bet on the basis that I had already won it. > in response to my post asking you to show your > code. It would be rather unethical of you to now claim that the web page you > posted that cites your alleged results for your "product" is the code that > represents your claims. You can twist it anyway you want, but I think that > it is abundantly clear from the context of the thread exactly what Hector > was asking for. > > -Pete > >
From: Pete Delgado on 27 May 2010 17:02 "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message news:VvWdnU3T1-6EW2PWnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > On 5/27/2010 1:54 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >> news:1eidnU5ZwMMsJGPWnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> On 5/27/2010 1:17 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >>>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>>> news:cpadnRRc3fZ6MGPWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> PS: It looks like you owe Hector $50... ;-) >>> >>> Not at all the bet was the I would not provide anything at all and I >>> have >>> provided much more than nothing at all long ago. >> >> Actually, the bet was "I got $50 bucks on NEVER producing anything >> representing his claims." > > And I accepted this bet on the sole basis that I had already won it before > the bet was posted because I had already provided the design for my > method, thus unequivocally meeting the specific literal terms of the bet: > (anything at all). It was and continues to be completely clear that I had > only accepted the bet on the basis that I had already won it. Again, removing the context of the wager, the claim that you will have written code with specific performance characteristics, won't work here. Anyone can view the thread to see what you have done. At this point, I suppose that you most likely will never post any original code written by you that meets or exceeds your specifications and furthermore you have shown a complete lack of ethics. I'm fairly dissapointed in you because I had thought that at least in this particular case you were being honest with us and I was hopefuly that you would in fact post an original work that you thought demonstrated your theories. -Pete
From: Peter Olcott on 27 May 2010 17:19
On 5/27/2010 4:02 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:VvWdnU3T1-6EW2PWnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> On 5/27/2010 1:54 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>> news:1eidnU5ZwMMsJGPWnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> On 5/27/2010 1:17 PM, Pete Delgado wrote: >>>>> "Peter Olcott"<NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:cpadnRRc3fZ6MGPWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> PS: It looks like you owe Hector $50... ;-) >>>> >>>> Not at all the bet was the I would not provide anything at all and I >>>> have >>>> provided much more than nothing at all long ago. >>> >>> Actually, the bet was "I got $50 bucks on NEVER producing anything >>> representing his claims." >> >> And I accepted this bet on the sole basis that I had already won it before >> the bet was posted because I had already provided the design for my >> method, thus unequivocally meeting the specific literal terms of the bet: >> (anything at all). It was and continues to be completely clear that I had >> only accepted the bet on the basis that I had already won it. > > Again, removing the context of the wager, the claim that you will have > written code with specific performance characteristics, won't work here. > Anyone can view the thread to see what you have done. > You don't know much about written contracts do you? > At this point, I suppose that you most likely will never post any original > code written by you that meets or exceeds your specifications and > furthermore you have shown a complete lack of ethics. I'm fairly > dissapointed in you because I had thought that at least in this particular > case you were being honest with us and I was hopefuly that you would in fact > post an original work that you thought demonstrated your theories. > > > > -Pete > > |