Related
Lets say an internet user searches for "trouble with gmail".
How can I return entries with "problem|problems|issues|issue|trouble|troubles with gmail|googlemail|google mail"?
I don't like to manually add these linkings between different keywords so the links between "issue <> problem <> trouble" and "gmail <> googlemail <> google mail" are completly unknown. They should be found in an automated process.
Approach to solve the problem
I provide a synonyms/thesaurus plattform like thesaurus.com, synonym.com, etc. or use an synomys database/api and use this user generated input for my queries on a third website.
But this won't cover all synonyms like the "gmail"-example.
Which other options do I have? Maybe something based on the given data and logged search phrases of the past?
You have to think of it ignoring the language.
When you show a baby the same thing using two words, he understand that those words are synonym. He might not have understood perfectly, but he will learn when this is repeated.
You type "problem with gmail".
Two choices:
Your search give results: you click on one item.
The system identify that this item was already clicked before when searching for "google mail bug". That's a match, and we will call it a "relative search".
Your search give poor results:
We will search in our history for a matching search:
We propose : "do you mean trouble with yahoo mail? yes/no". You click no, that's a "no match". And we might propose others suggestions like a list of known "relative search" or a list of might be related playing with both full text search in our history and levenshtein distance.
When a term is sufficiently scored to be considered as a "synonym", you can consider it is. Algorithm might be wrong, but in fact it depends on what you really expect.
If i search "sending a message is difficult with google", and "gmail issue", nothing is synonym, but search are relatively the same. This is more important to me than true synonyms.
And if you really want to get the synonym, i would do it in a second phase comparing words inside "relative searches" and would include a manual check.
I think google algorithm use synonym mainly to highlight search terms in page result, but not to do an actual search where they use the relative search terms, except in known situations, as the result for "gmail" and "google mail" are not the same.
But if you identify 10 relative searches for "gmail" which all contains "google mail", that will be a good start point to guess they are synonyms.
This is a bit long for a comment.
What you are looking for is called a "thesaurus" or "synonyms" list in the world of text searching. Apparently, there is a proposal for such functionality in MySQL. It is not yet implemented. (Here is a related question on Stack Overflow, although the link in the question doesn't seem to work.)
The work-around would be to modify queries before sending them to the database. That is, parse the query into words, then look up all the synonyms for those words, and reconstruct the query. This works better for the natural language searches than the boolean searches (which require more careful reconstruction).
Pseudo-code for getting the final word list with synonyms would be something like:
select #finalwords = concat_ws(' ', group_concat(synonyms separator ' ') )
from synonyms s
where find_in_set(s.baseword, #words) > 0;
Seems to me that you have two problems on your hands:
Lemmatisation, which breaks words down into their lemma, sometimes called the headword or root word. This is more difficult than Stemming, as it doesn't just chop suffixes off of words, but tries to find a true root, e.g. "are" => "be". This is something that is often done programatically, although it appears to be a complex task. Here is an online example of text being lemmatized: http://lemmatise.ijs.si/Services
Searching for synonymous lemmas. This is a very complex problem. One approach to this that I have heard of is modifying the lemmatisation engine to return more than one lemma for a given set of words, i.e. "problems" => "problem" and "issue", thereby allowing a more flexible set of results. However, this means that the synonymous lemmas must be provided to the lemmatisation engine from elsewhere. I truly have no idea how you would build a list of synonyms programatically.
So, you may consider a strategy whereby you lemmatise the text to be searched for, then pass each lemma out to your synonym finder (however that works) to get a final list of lemmas to perform your search with.
I think you have bitten off a very large problem for yourself.
If the system in question is a publicly accessible website, one 'out there' option is to ensure all content can be crawled by Google and then use a Google search on your own site, which should give you the synonym capability 'for free'. There would obviously be some vagaries in the results though and lag in getting match results for newly created content, depending upon how regularly the crawlers hit the site. Probably not suitable in your use case, but for some people, this may be sufficient.
Seeing your revised question, what about using a public API?
http://www.programmableweb.com/category/reference/apis?category=20066&keyword=synonym
This is a language agnostic question, but I'm wandering what people prefer in terms of readability and maintainability... My hypothetical situation is that I'm writing a function which given a sequence will return a copy with all duplicate element removed and the order reversed.
/*
*This is an extremely well written function to return a sequence containing
*all the unique elements of OriginalSequence with their order reversed
*/
ReturnSequence SequenceFunction(OriginalSequence)
{...}
OR
UniqueAndReversedSequence MakeSequenceUniqueAndReversed(OriginalSequence)
{....}
The above is supposed to be a lucid example of using comments in the first instance or using very verbose function names in the second to describe the actions of the function.
Cheers,
Richard
I prefer the verbose function name as it make the call-site more readable. Of course, some function names (like your example) can get really long.
Perhaps a better name for your example function would be ReverseAndDedupe. Uh oh, now it is a little more clear that we have a function with two responsibilities*. Perhaps it would be even better to split this out into two functions: Reverse and Dedupe.
Now the call-site becomes even more readable:
Reverse(Dedupe(someSequence))
*Note: My rule of thumb is that any function that contains "and" in the name has too many responsibilities and needs to be split up in to separate functions.
Personally I prefer the second way - it's easy to see from the function name what it does - and because the code inside the function is well written anyway it'll be easy to work out exactly what happens inside it.
The problem I find with comments is they very quickly go out of date - there's no compile time check to ensure your comment is correct!
Also, you don't get access to the comment in the places where the function is actually called.
Very much a subjective question though!
Ideally you would do a combination of the two. Try to keep your method names concise but descriptive enough to get a good idea of what it's going to do. If there is any possibility of lack of clarity in the method name, you should have comments to assist the reader in the logic.
Even with descriptive names you should still be concise. I think what you have in the example is overkill. I would have written
UniqueSequence Reverse(Sequence)
I comment where there's an explanation in order that a descriptive name cannot adequately convey. If there's a peculiarity with a library that forced me to do something that appears non-standard or value in dropping a comment inline, I'll do that but otherwise I rely upon well-named methods and don't comment things a lot - except while I'm writing the code, and those are for myself. They get removed when it is done, typically.
Generally speaking, function header comments are just more lines to maintain and require the reader to look at both the comment and the code and then decide which is correct if they aren't in correspondence. Obviously the truth is always in the code. The comment may say X but comments don't compile to machine code (typically) so...
Comment when necessary and make a habit of naming things well. That's what I do.
I'd probably do one of these:
Call it ReverseAndDedupe (or DedupeAndReverse, depending which one it is -- I'd expect Dedupe alone to keep the first occurrence and discard later ones, so the two operations do not commute). All functions make some postcondition true, so Make can certainly go in order to shorten a too-long name. Functions don't generally need to be named for the types they operate on, and if they are then it should be in a consistent format. So Sequence can probably be removed from your proposed name too, or if it can't then I'd probably call it Sequence_ReverseAndDedupe.
Not create this function at all, make sure that callers can either do Reverse(Dedupe(x)) or Dedupe(Reverse(x)), depending which they actually want. It's no more code for them to write, so only an issue of whether there's some cunning optimization that only applies when you do both at once. Avoiding an intermediate copy might qualify there, but the general point is that if you can't name your function concisely, make sure there's a good reason why it's doing so many different things.
Call it ReversedAndDeduped if it returns a copy of the original sequence - this is a trick I picked up from Python, where l.sort() sorts the list l in place, and sorted(l) doesn't modify a list l at all.
Give it a name specific to the domain it's used in, rather than trying to make it so generic. Why am I deduping and reversing this list? There might be some term of art that means a list in that state, or some function which can only be performed on such a list. So I could call it 'Renuberate' (because a reversed, deduped list is known as a list "in Renuberated form", or 'MakeFrobbable' (because Frobbing requires this format).
I'd also comment it (or much better, document it), to explain what type of deduping it guarantees (if any - perhaps the implementation is left free to remove whichever dupes it likes so long as it gets them all).
I wouldn't comment it "extremely well written", although I might comment "highly optimized" to mean "this code is really hard to work with, but goes like the clappers, please don't touch it without running all the performance tests".
I don't think I'd want to go as far as 5-word function names, although I expect I have in the past.
When I'm programming, I often find myself writing functions that -should- (to be proper english) contain apostrophes (too bad C started everyone thinking that an apostrophe was an appropriate delimiter). For example: get_user's_group() -> get_users_group() . What do you guys do with that forced-bad-english ambiguous english? Just ignore the apostrophe? Create a different phrasing?
In that case, I would do get_group_for_user().
So, yes, I would "create a different phrasing" :)
Either that, or user.get_group().
getGroupForUser()
or
getGroupByUser()
My original answer of Ignore it, move on! is incomplete. You should ignore the fact you can't use ' in your method/function names. But you should continue to look at the naming of them to better explain what they do. I think this is a worthwhile pursuit in programming.
Picking on JavaScript, you could if you wanted to use apostrophes:
const user = {
"get_user's_group": () => console.log("Naming things! Am I right?!")
}
user["get_user's_group"]()
But don't do that 😬
Taking it further, you could if you wanted to, use a transpiler to take your grammatically correct name and transform it into something you never see.
Again with JavaScript as an example, maybe you could write a babel transform.
But don't do that 😛
As others have said, if there is context available from an object, that's a nice option:
user.get_group()
Failing that, the context of the surrounding code should be enough to make this your choice:
get_users_group()
How about getGroupByUser?
Either get_user_ApostropheShouldBeHereButLanguageWillNotLetMe_s_group or just ignore it because it really doesn't matter.
I ignore the apostraphe getGroupyUser and group_from_user are both perfectly understandable. Worrying about having correct grammer in your function names is a waste of time and distracts from the correct goal of having clear and understandable user names.
the point of proper english in function naming is a bit extreme ...
i mean why is the apostrophe bothering you but the _ instead of a space is not ?
Depending on the programming language you may be able to use Unicode variable names, this SO thread lists a few.
With Unicode identifiers you could use one of the unicode apostrophes to give the proper english language formatting to your variable name. Though this only speculative. And it would be hard to maintain. Actually, now that I think about it, it sounds downright evil.
Two points: First, don't use a name that would otherwise require an apostrophe if you can avoid it. Second, you are right in being concerned about ambiguity. For example, you could have:
getUsersGroup: gets the group of a list of users. If you are using an object-oriented language, this could have more information than just a group ID string. You could also have something like createUsersGroup, which would create a group object from a list of users passed in.
getGroupOfUser: takes in some sort of user object; returns the name of the group of the user
getGroupByUserId: takes in the user's name or a unique ID associated with that user; returns the name of the group of the user
The best way to delineate the difference between all of these is to just use standard method comments that explain the method names. This would depend on what language you are working with and what style of method comments your organization conventionally uses.
Normally I just drop the apostrophe, but do back-ticks work? (get_user`s_group)
getGroupOfUser? getUserGroup?
It's a programming language, not literature...
It would be getBackgroundColour in proper English (rather than getBackgroundColor)
Personally I'd write get_user_group() rather than get_group_for_user() since it feels like it reads better to me. Of course, I use a programming language where apostrophes are allowed in names:
proc get_user's_group {id} {#...}
Although, some of the more prolific non-English-native European users use it as a word separator:
proc user'group {id} {#...}
to each his own I guess..
Typically languages have keywords that you are unable to use directly with the exact same spelling and case for naming things (variables,functions,classes ...) in your program. Yet sometimes a keyword is the only natural choice for naming something. What is your system for avoiding/getting around this clash in your chosen technology?
I just avoid the name, usually. Either find a different name or change it slightly - e.g. clazz instead of class in C# or Java. In C# you can use the # prefix, but it's horrible:
int #int = 5; // Ick!
There is nothing intrinsically all-encompassing about a keyword, in that it should stop you from being able to name your variables. Since all names are just generalized instances of some type to one degree or another, you can always go up or down in the abstraction to find another useful name.
For example, if your writing a system that tracks students and you want an object to represent their study in a specific field, i.e. they've taken a "class" in something, if you can't use the term directly, or the plural "classes", or an alternative like "studies", you might find a more "instanced" variation: studentClass, currentClass, etc. or a higher perspective: "courses", "courseClass" or a specfic type attribute: dailyClass, nightClass, etc.
Lots of options, you should just prefer the simplest and most obvious one, that's all.
I always like to listen to the users talk, because the scope of their language helps define the scope of the problem, often if you listen long enough you'll find they have many multiple terms for the same underlying things (with only subtle differences). They usually have the answer ...
Paul.
My system is don't use keywords period!
If I have a function/variable/class and it only seems logical to name it with a keyword, I'll use a descriptive word in front of the keyword.
(adjectiveNoun) format. ie: personName instead of Name where "Name" is a keyword.
I just use a more descriptive name. For instance, 'id' becomes identifier, 'string' becomes 'descriptionString,' and so on.
In Python I usually use proper namespacing on my modules to avoid name clashes.
import re
re.compile()
instead of:
from re import *
compile()
Sometimes, when I can't avoid keyword name clashes I simply drop the last letter off the name of my variable.
for fil in files:
pass
As stated before either change class to clazz in Java/C#, or use some underscore as a prefix, for example
int _int = 0;
There should be no reason to use keywords as variable names. Either use a more detailed word or use a thesaraus. Capitalizing certain letters of the word to make it not exactly like the keyword is not going to help much to someone inheriting your code later.
Happy those with a language without ANY keywords...
But joke apart, I think in the seldom situations where "Yet sometimes a keyword is the only natural choice for naming something." you can get along by prefixing it with "my", "do", "_" or similar.
I honestly can't really think of many such instances where the keyword alone makes a good name ("int", "for" and "if" are definitely bad anyway). The only few in the C-language family which might make sense are "continue" (make it "doContinue"), "break" (how about "breakWhenEOFIsreached" or similar ?) and the already mentioned "class" (how about "classOfThingy" ?).
In other words: make the names more reasonable.
And always remember: code is WRITTEN only once, but usualy READ very often.
Typically I follow Hungarian Notation. So if, for whatever reason, I wanted to use 'End' as a variable of type integer I would declare it as 'iEnd'. A string would be 'strEnd', etc. This usually gives me some room as far as variables go.
If I'm working on a particular personal project that other people will only ever look at to see what I did, for example, when making an add-on to a game using the UnrealEngine, I might use my initials somewhere in the name. 'DS_iEnd' perhaps.
I write my own [vim] syntax highlighters for each language, and I give all keywords an obvious colour so that I notice them when I'm coding. Languages like PHP and Perl use $ for variables, making it a non-issue.
Developing in Ruby on Rails I sometime look up this list of reserved words.
In 15 years of programming, I've rarely had this problem.
One place I can immediately think of, is perhaps a css class, and in that case, I'd use a more descriptive name. So instead of 'class', I might use 'targetClass' or something similar.
In python the generally accepted method is to append an '_'
class -> class_
or -> or_
and -> and_
you can see this exemplified in the operator module.
I switched to a language which doesn't restrict identifier names at all.
First of all, most code conventions prevent such a thing from happening.
If not, I usually add a descriptive prose prefix or suffix:
the_class or theClass infix_or (prefix_or(class_param, in_class) , a_class) or_postfix
A practice, that is usually in keeping with every code style advice you can find ("long names don't kill", "Longer variable names don't take up more space in memory, I promise.")
Generally, if you think the keyword is the best description, a slightly worse one would be better.
Note that, by the very premise of your question you introduce ambiguity, which is bad for the reader, be it a compiler or human. Even if it is a custom to use class, clazz or klass and even if that custom is not so custom that it is a custom: it takes a word word, precisely descriptive as word may be, and distorts it, effectively shooting w0rd's precision in the "wrd". Somebody used to another w_Rd convention or language might have a few harsh wordz for your wolds.
Most of us have more to say about things than "Flower", "House" or "Car", so there's usually more to say about typeNames, decoratees, class_params, BaseClasses and typeReferences.
This is where my personal code obfuscation tolerance ends:
Never(!!!) rely on scoping or arcane syntax rules to prevent name clashes with "key words". (Don't know any compiler that would allow that, but, these days, you never know...).
Try that and someone will w**d you in the wörd so __rd, Word will look like TeX to you!
My system in Java is to capitalize the second letter of the word, so for example:
int dEfault;
boolean tRansient;
Class cLass;
Not that it is seriously burdensome to type
:My_custom_foobar()
instead of just
:my_custom_foobar()
but it just feels odd considering how virtually every other aspect of Vim is so extensible. Some searching for an answer has not turned up much, but I know it's got to be possible without having to recompile Vim from source. Does anyone out there know a way to accomplish this?
You could do it with a :abbrev, but it's really not recommended. The reason you cannot do this is because of: 1) vi compatibility, 2) future expansion.
Point 2 is the bigger issue -- if you could write functions, then there's no guarantee that you don't wind up naming one that later conflicts with a built-in function, and this is simply not allowed. You'd end up getting errors when trying to load the function.
Maybe try mapping.
nnoremap <Leader>f :call My_custom_foobar()<CR>
You have to do it one function at a time. Not sure how you would go about doing it for all functions. I say stick to convention and type the capital letter for function name.