Contest: fastest IsAnagram function

[BrunoK]

@Bart
I will fix it, of course, but since I've joined a bit late, can't I have a test bench source in some form. It is hard to orient in such a big topic... thanks!

My testbench, maybe it also works for you.

It's the set of tests I considered recently. The original program was proposed by ??? somewhere higher in the thread.

[Bart]

I already showed relevant code that checks the validity of the algorithm's as well as the (valid and invalid) anagrams I throw at them.

Your code also accepts a #1 in the input, but it crashes if a #128 is in it:

Code: [Select]

Alpine: #0 ->TRUE (should be False)
Alpine: #1 ->TRUE (should be False)
Alpine: #128 An unhandled exception occurred at $0040527B:
EAccessViolation: Access violation
  $0040527B
  $00405F13
Bart

[alpine]

My testbench, maybe it also works for you.

Thanks again.

I already showed relevant code that checks the validity of the algorithm's as well as the (valid and invalid) anagrams I throw at them.

If you mean post #97 (as you pointed to Warfrey) it contains just a snippets, no e.g. ValidAnagrams, InValidAnagrams.
Anyway, I can see my check failing for #0..#31 when put at the same positions in S1,S2, that is what you're checking about

EDIT: I'm withdrawing. Have no chance against others well-crafted solutions such as AVK's. Not without considerable effort. Sorry for the noise.

[Bart]

Anyway, I can see my check failing for #0..#31 when put at the same positions in S1,S2, that is what you're checking about

No, your code says that #1#0 is a valid anagram of #0#1, but the rusles say that the input may not contain anything lower than #32 (or higher than #127).

it contains just a snippets, no e.g. ValidAnagrams, InValidAnagrams.

I also posted the ValidAnagrams I'm currently tested (posted them more tham once) as well as the invalid ones.

Bart

[Ten_Mile_Hike]

Code: Text  [Select][+][-]

1. My code below "DEFINITELY" tells the user if "in the programs opinion"
2. one string is an anagram of another string.
3. ****I will entertain no disputes on this******** :D :D :D
4.  

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. Function Is_Anagram (S1,s2:String): Boolean;
2. Begin
3. Result:= Random(2)=0;
4. end;
5.  
6. procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
7. begin
8. With Button1 Do if (Is_Anagram(edit1.caption,edit2.caption)) then caption:='Is Anagram' else Caption:='Is Not Anagram';
9. end;
10.  

[Bart]

Code: Text  [Select][+][-]

1. My code below "DEFINITELY" tells the user if "in the programs opinion"
2. one string is an anagram of another string.
3. ****I will entertain no disputes on this******** :D :D :D
4.  

Still slower than my dummy code (you can see in my test results it doesn't pass the validity test ):

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. function IsAnagram_Dummy(const S1, S2: String; IgnoreSpaces: Boolean = True; ExceptionOnError: Boolean = False): Boolean;
2. begin
3.   Result := True;
4. end;  

Bart

[alpine]

Anyway, I can see my check failing for #0..#31 when put at the same positions in S1,S2, that is what you're checking about

No, your code says that #1#0 is a valid anagram of #0#1, but the rusles say that the input may not contain anything lower than #32 (or higher than #127).

"No" to what? Because you're telling me the same thing that I did.

[Bart]

"No" to what? Because you're telling me the same thing that I did.

Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, I can see my check failing for #0..#31 when put at the same positions in S1,S2, that is what you're checking about

I interpreted that sentence as in: my validity test only checks #0..#32 in the same position and only that is illegal.
The validity test in fact is implemented in such a way that both input strings are the same illegal character.
The reason for that is that I can check every individual illegal character this way.
If I would e.g. check all characters in one string, then I cannot be sure which illegal character it misses, or if the failure may  be in another part of the code.
E.g. if I check #1#2#2#4#5#6#7#8#9 as input for both string paramters and your code returns False (as it should), it may be that it returns False because it accepts all characters, but the counting has a bug.
For the same reason it makes no sense to check e.g. #0 against #1. The code should return False, but it may do so because #0 <> #1 and not because it detects an illegal character.

Bart

[O]

Here is a quick draft based on the reference code.

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1.   function IsAnagram(const AValue1, AValue2: String; AIgnoreSpaces, AExceptionOnError: Boolean): Boolean;
2.   const
3.     Primes: array[Char] of Integer = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
4.       0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71,
5.       73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181,
6.       191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307,
7.       311, 313, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239,
8.       241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
9.       0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
10.       0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
11.       0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
12.       0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
13.  
14.     procedure Error(const AName: String; APosition: Integer); overload;
15.     begin
16.       Raise ERangeError.CreateFmt('IsAnagram: illegal character in ' + AName + ' at position %d', [APosition]);
17.     end;
18.  
19.     function Process(const AName, AValue: String): QWord; inline;
20.     var
21.       I: Integer;
22.     begin
23.       Result := 1;
24.       for I := 1 to Length(AValue) do
25.         Result *= Primes[AValue[I]];
26.       if Result = 0 then
27.         if AExceptionOnError then
28.           for I := 1 to Length(AValue) do
29.             if Primes[AValue[I]] = 0 then
30.               Error(AName, I);
31.     end;
32.  
33.   begin
34.     if (not AIgnoreSpaces) and (not AExceptionOnError) and (Length(AValue1) <> Length(AValue2)) then
35.       Exit(False);
36.     Primes[' '] := specialize IfThen<Integer>(AIgnoreSpaces, 1, 2);
37.     Result := Process('S1', AValue1) = Process('S2', AValue2);
38.   end;
39.                                                                                                          

[Bart]

Here is a quick draft based on the reference code.

Alas,

Code: [Select]

TestValidity for O
FAIL to detect invalid character #0
Validitycheck FAIL for O
Bart

[Bart]

I think we should finish this thread.

The winner is: AVK.

Thanks to all of you.