Message217174
Tim,
You bring up some great points and insight I was missing.
"To me the scores just aren't interesting beyond which words' scores exceed a cutoff, and the ordering of words based on their similarity scores - but `get_close_matches()` already captures those uses."
For a *word*, and a corpus of *possibilities*, how does one choose a satisfactory *cutoff* without inspecting the output of the scoring algorithm?
Personally, I don't want to inpect scores for inspection sake, I want to inspect scores so I can make an informed decision for the *n* and *cutoff* input arguments.
Its true that after reading and digesting the source code for `get_close_matches()` I could (and did) implement a version that returns scores. My goal was to share this code and what better way then to "fix" the problem upstream.
I understand the desire to keep the standard library lean and useful to reduce the amount of burden the code is to maintain. I will understand if we decide not to include these patches, I can always maintain a fork and share on pypi. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-04-25 22:18:28 | russellballestrini | set | recipients:
+ russellballestrini, tim.peters, Claudiu.Popa, zach.ware |
2014-04-25 22:18:28 | russellballestrini | set | messageid: <1398464308.06.0.880618693694.issue21344@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-04-25 22:18:28 | russellballestrini | link | issue21344 messages |
2014-04-25 22:18:26 | russellballestrini | create | |
|