I am new in wit.ai. I'm confused with it. I have few questions:
how works Actions: 'Only if..' and 'Always if...'
simply I have 2 entities: 'Hi' and 'Botname',I have 2 stories: when say 'Hi' wit answers 'answer1', when say 'Botname', wit answers 'answer2'. It's Ok, but when combined 'Hi Botname', I want wit to answer 'answer1', but I can't echieveit without adding story. I try to add in Actions ->'Answer2'-'Only if..' 'doesn't have' ->'Hi', but still it answers 'Answer2' and I don't understend why :)
second question I sometimes don't get adequate answer from wit and I don't know how to avoid such cases. For example: entity 'constitution' and in 'understending' when writing 'station' wit gets 'constitution', this two words are different. and what to do? please, help with it.
To the first question, I'd suggest that rather than trying to use the keyword and free-text format of entities, you define and assign a trait entity which will not necessarily try to match the exact word, but the feeling of the sentence.
For example
Given the situation above, if you were to train an intent
called "greeting" to recognize all sentences with "Hi" in it as
greetings, then the result of "Hi Botname" will continue to be the
result of Hi. Also, if you're going to be using branching, enitites
will have to be defined as trait entities in either case.
To the second (And this will help with the first), you just have to spend some time training the bot to understand. You can't rush the brush. You'll have to feed it some examples before it can understand the difference in the words, and start to pick those differences up in future words.
The Wit Bot engine was released only a little while ago, so we're all learning it now, but I hope I could help you with the little knowledge I've gained.
Related
to is an infix function within the standard library. It can be used to create Pairs concisely:
0 to "hero"
in comparison with:
Pair(0, "hero")
Typically, it is used to initialize Maps concisely:
mapOf(0 to "hero", 1 to "one", 2 to "two")
However, there are other situations in which one needs to create a Pair. For instance:
"to be or not" to "be"
(0..10).map { it to it * it }
Is it acceptable, stylistically, to (ab)use to in this manner?
Just because some language features are provided does not mean they are better over certain things. A Pair can be used instead of to and vice versa. What becomes a real issue is that, does your code still remain simple, would it require some reader to read the previous story to understand the current one? In your last map example, it does not give a hint of what it's doing. Imagine someone reading { it to it * it}, they would be most likely confused. I would say this is an abuse.
to infix offer a nice syntactical sugar, IMHO it should be used in conjunction with a nicely named variable that tells the reader what this something to something is. For example:
val heroPair = Ironman to Spiderman //including a 'pair' in the variable name tells the story what 'to' is doing.
Or you could use scoping functions
(Ironman to Spiderman).let { heroPair -> }
I don't think there's an authoritative answer to this. The only examples in the Kotlin docs are for creating simple constant maps with mapOf(), but there's no hint that to shouldn't be used elsewhere.
So it'll come down to a matter of personal taste…
For me, I'd be happy to use it anywhere it represents a mapping of some kind, so in a map{…} expression would seem clear to me, just as much as in a mapOf(…) list. Though (as mentioned elsewhere) it's not often used in complex expressions, so I might use parentheses to keep the precedence clear, and/or simplify the expression so they're not needed.
Where it doesn't indicate a mapping, I'd be much more hesitant to use it. For example, if you have a method that returns two values, it'd probably be clearer to use an explicit Pair. (Though in that case, it'd be clearer still to define a simple data class for the return value.)
You asked for personal perspective so here is mine.
I found this syntax is a huge win for simple code, especial in reading code. Reading code with parenthesis, a lot of them, caused mental stress, imagine you have to review/read thousand lines of code a day ;(
Why does this ridiculously simple query on data.stackexchange.com return results that don't have [help/dont-ask] in the comment text? I feel like I'm missing something mind-numbingly obvious here.
select top 10 Id, PostId, Text
from comments
where text like '%[help/dont-ask]%'
Results I currently get:
Id PostId Text
-- ------- -----------------------------------
1 35314 not sure why this is getting downvoted -- it is correct! Double check it in your compiler if you don't believe him!
2 35314 Yeah, I didn't believe it until I created a console app - but good lord! Why would they give you the rope to hang yourself! I hated that about VB.NET - the OrElse and AndAlso keywords!
4 35195 I don't see an accepted answer now, I wonder how that got unaccepted. Incidentally, I would have marked an accepted answer based on the answers available at the time. Also, accepted doesn't mean Best :)
9 47239 Jonathan: Wow! Thank you for all of that, you did an amazing amount of work!
10 45651 It will help if you give some details of which database you are using as techniques vary.
12 47428 One of the things that make a url user-friendly is 'discover-ability', meaning you can take a guess at url's simply from the address bar. http://i.love.pets.com/search/cats+dogs could easily lead to http://i.love.pets.com/search/pug+puppies etc
14 47481 I agree, both CodeRush and RefactorPro are visually impressive (most of which can be turned off BTW), but for navigating and refactoring Resharper is much better in my opinion of using both products.
15 47373 Just wanted to mention that this is an excellent solution if you consider the problem to be linear (i.e. treating `A1B2` as a single number). I still think the problem is multi-dimensional, but I guess we'll just have to wait for the author to clarify :)
16 47497 Indeed, the only way to do this is get the server to generate your CSS file which can be done in many ways depending on which language you are using. HttpHandlers are common in C#. You could use jQuery or the likes to add styling to every element with the class 'ourColur' and parametrise your JS
18 47513 This advice goes against the spirit of CSS, which is separation of content and presentation. You way requires changing HTML for presentation sake, and stating in content which elements have same color.
...none of which contains the magic link (or even the text dont-ask).
Because [] delimits a set of characters to find.
You need to escape them.
Or just use CHARINDEX as the search is unsargable anyway.
WHERE CHARINDEX('[help/dont-ask]', text) > 0
I'm on OS X, and in objective-c I'm trying to convert
for example,
"Bobateagreenapple"
into
"Bob ate a green apple"
Is there any way to do this efficiently? Would something involving a spell checker work?
EDIT: Just some extra information:
I'm attempting to build something that takes some misformatted text (for example, text copy pasted from old pdfs that end up without spaces, especially from internet archives like JSTOR). Since the misformatted text is probably going to be long... well, I'm just trying to figure out whether this is feasibly possible before I actually attempt to actually write system only to find out it takes 2 hours to fix a paragraph of text.
One possibility, which I will describe this in a non-OS specific manner, is to perform a search through all the possible words that make up the collection of letters.
Basically you chop off the first letter of your letter collection and add it to the current word you are forming. If it makes a word (eg dictionary lookup) then add it to the current sentence. If you manage to use up all the letters in your collection and form words out of all of them, then you have a full sentence. But, you don't have to stop here. Instead, you keep running, and eventually you will produce all possible sentences.
Pseudo-code would look something like this:
FindWords(vector<Sentence> sentences, Sentence s, Word w, Letters l)
{
if (l.empty() and w.empty())
add s to sentences;
return;
if (l.empty())
return;
add first letter from l to w;
if w in dictionary
{
add w to s;
FindWords(sentences, s, empty word, l)
remove w from s
}
FindWords(sentences, s, w, l)
put last letter from w back onto l
}
There are, of course, a number of optimizations you could perform to make it go fast. For instance checking if the word is the stem of any word in the dictionary. But, this is the basic approach that will give you all possible sentences.
Solving this problem is much harder than anything you'll find in a framework. Notice that even in your example, there are other "solutions": "Bob a tea green apple," for one.
A very naive (and not very functional) approach might be to use a spell-checker to try to isolate one "real word" at a time in the string; of course, in this example, that would only work because "Bob" happens to be an English word.
This is not to say that there is no way to accomplish what you want, but the way you phrase this question indicates to me that it might be a lot more complicated than what you're expecting. Maybe someone can give you an acceptable solution, but I bet they'll need to know a lot more about what exactly you're trying to do.
Edit: in response to your edit, it would probably take less effort to run some kind of OCR tool on a PDF and correct its output than it would just to correct what this system might give you, let alone program it
I implemented a solution, the code is avaible on code project:
http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/704003/How-to-add-spaces-between-spaceless-strings
My idea was to prioritize results that use up most of the characters (preferable all of them) then favor the ones with the longest words, because 2,3 or 4 character long words can often come up by chance from leftout characters. Most of the times this provides the correct solution.
To find all possible permutations I used recursion. The code is quite fast even with big dictionaries (tested with 50 000 words).
Do you think x, y, z are good variable names? How will you explain a new programmer to write readable code?
Readable code means some combination of comments and variable and function naming that allows me to read the code once and understand it. If I have to read it more than once, or spend my time working through complicated loops or functions, there's room for improvement.
Good summary descriptions at the top of files and classes are useful to give the reader context and background information.
Clear names are important. Verbose names make it much easier to write readable code with far fewer comments.
Writing readable code is a skill that takes some time to learn. I personally like overly verbose names because they create self documenting code.
As already stated x, y, and z are good variables for 3D coordinates but probably bad for anything else...
If someone does not believe that names are important, just use a code obfuscator on some code then ask them to debug it :-).
(BTW that's the only situation where a code obfuscator can be useful IMHO)
There seems to be slightly different conventions per progamming language; however, the consensus these days is to...
use pascal case
make the name meaningful
end with a noun
Here is a decent recap of what Microsoft publishes as standard naming conventions for .NET
The inventor of python has published a style guide which includes naming conventions.
There was a time when Microsoft VC++ developers (myself included) actually rallied around what was known as Hungarian Notation
Certainly there are multiple schools of thought on this, but I would only use these for counters, and advise far more descriptive names for any other variables.
x, y and z can be perfectly good variable names. For example you might be writing code that refers to them in reference to a 3D cartesian coordinate system. These names are often used for the three axes in such a system and as such they would be well suited.
I would give them some maintenance work on some code with variables called x, y, z and let them realise for themselves that readability is vital...
95% of code viewing is not by the author, but by the customer that everyone forgets about - the next programmer. You owe it to her to make her life easy.
Good variable names describe exactly what they are without being overly complex. I always use descriptive names, even in loops (for instance, index instead of i). It helps keep track of what's going on, especially when I'm working on rewriting a particularly complex piece of code.
Well give them a chunk of bad code and ask them to debug it.
Take the following code (simple example)
<?php $a = fopen('/path/to/file.ext', 'w');$b = "NEW LINE\n";fwrite($a, $b);fclose($a);?>
The bug is: File only ever contains 1 line when it should be a log
Problem: 'w' in fopen should be 'a'
This obviously is a super easy example, if you want to give them a bigger more complicated example give them the WMD source and ask them to give you readable code in 2 hours, it will get your point across.
As long as x, y and z are (3D) Cartesian co-ordinates, then they're great names.
In a similar vein, i, j and k would be OK for loop variables.
In all cases, the variable names should relate to the data
x,y and z are acceptable variable names if they represent 3d coordinates, or if they're used for iterating over 2 or 3 dimensional arrays.
This code is fine as far as I'm concerned:
for(int x = 0; x < xsize ; x++)
{
for(int y = 0; y < ysize ; y++)
{
for(int z = 0; z < zsize ; z++)
{
DoSomething(data[x][y][z]);
...
This one is a short answer, but it works very well for me:
If it would need a code comment to describe it, then rethink the variable name.
So if it's obvious, why "x" was choosen, then they are good names. E.g. "i" as variable name in a loop is (often) pretty obvious.
An ideal variable name is both short (to make the code more compact) and descriptive (to help understanding the code).
Opinions differ on which of the two is more important. Personally, I'd say it depends on the scope of the variable. A variable used only inside a 3 line loop can get away with being single letter. A class field in a 500 line class better be pretty damn descriptive. The Spartan Programming philosophy says that as far as possible, all units of code should be small enough that variable names can be very short.
Readable code and good naming conventions are not the same thing!
A good name for a variable is one that allows you to understand (or reasonably guess) the purpose and type of the variable WITHOUT seeing the context in which it is used. Thus, "x" "y" and "z" say coordinates because that is a reasonable guess. Conversely, a bad name is one that leads you to a wrong likely guess. For example, if "x" "y" and "z" represent people.
A good name for a function is one that conveys everything you would need to know about it without having to consult its documentation. That is not always possible.
Readable code is first of all code whose structured could be understood even if you obfuscated all variable and function names. If you do that and can't figure out the control structure easily, you're screwed.
Once you have readable code and good naming, then maybe you'll have truly readable code.
In this question, a user commented to never use the With block in VB. Why?
"Never" is a strong word.
I think it fine as long as you don't abuse it (like nesting)
IMHO - this is better:
With MyCommand.Parameters
.Count = 1
.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
.Item(0).Value = fuz
End With
Than:
MyCommand.Parameters.Count = 1
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).Value = fuz
There is nothing wrong about the With keyword. It's true that it may reduce readibility when nested but the solution is simply don't use nested With.
There may be namespace problems in Delphi, which doesn't enforce a leading dot but that issue simply doesn't exist in VB.NET so the people that are posting rants about Delphi are losing their time in this question.
I think the real reason many people don't like the With keyword is that is not included in C* languages and many programmers automatically think that every feature not included in his/her favourite language is bad.
It's just not helpful compared to other options.
If you really miss it you can create a one or two character alias for your object instead. The alias only takes one line to setup, rather than two for the With block (With + End With lines).
The alias also gives you a quick mouse-over reference for the type of the variable. It provides a hook for the IDE to help you jump back to the top of the block if you want (though if the block is that large you have other problems). It can be passed as an argument to functions. And you can use it to reference an index property.
So we have an alternative that gives more function with less code.
Also see this question:
Why is the with() construct not included in C#, when it is really cool in VB.NET?
The with keyword is only sideswiped in a passing reference here in an hilarious article by the wonderful Verity Stob, but it's worth it for the vitriol: See the paragraph that starts
While we are on identifier confusion. The with keyword...
Worth reading the entire article!
The With keyword also provides another benefit - the object(s) in the With statement only need to be "qualified" once, which can improve performance. Check out the information on MSDN here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wc500chb(VS.80).aspx
So by all means, use it.