Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: other forth applications Message-ID: <1867.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 16 Oct 90 03:16:37 GMT Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips. (in Pgh, PA) Lines: 41 Date: 10-07-90 (23:29) Number: 3996 (Echo) To: GENE LEFAVE Refer#: 3769 From: ZAFAR ESSAK Read: 10-11-90 (11:14) Subj: SOUNDEX Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Gene thanks for the synopsis of the SOUNDEX algorithm and your comments. GL> I used to use SOUNDEX code to retrieve entries in a database. GL> Using SOUNDEX made the program very tolerant of spelling errors. GL> I seem to recall that certain database programs had this function GL> built in. This is exactly what I had in mind. i.e. Using the SOUNDEX code as the index into the list of names, and then displaying appropriate names for selection by the User in an alphabetic listing. Hoping that this would be tolerant of spelling errors. However, with the experimental run I have done and the range of names that may have the same codes I am wondering what to do? For example: Code B200 includes: BAUGH, BEGGS, BOSSE, BOYCE, BUKSH Code B520 includes: BAINS, BANJI, BINGA Code K400 includes: KALE, KELLY, KUHL, KYLE Now if every name in the range is displayed, little if anything is gained. Should the selection only display the other names with matching codes, Ignoring others with spelling that may be alphabetically adjacent? Or ... I have experience with using a straight string comparison but would like to find something that might provide additional tolerance. Thanks for your comments. Zafar. --- * Via Qwikmail 2.01 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp