| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Hari Wiguna writes:
> > I was copy pasting URL to Lugnet set database onto my email client when I
> > realized how HANDY it would be if all LEGO set numbers are automatically
> > shown as hotlinks to the lugnet set database! • [snip]
> Alas, this is actually an *extremely* difficult problem to solve. Displaying
> the info (once you know the set number) is easy -- that's just a SMOP -- but
> figuring out whether a given integer is a set number or not -- and whether
> it's the correct set number from two or more identical set numbers -- is
> no easy task.
>
> > Just search the text (subject and posted message content) for three or four
> > digit numbers, and add the proper URL to do a set search.
>
> Susceptible to false positives. Examples:
>
> "I bowled a 295 yesterday!"
> Not referring to the #295 Homemaker Office set.
>
> "I used to listen to that group back in 1978."
> Not referring to set 31978 Build-A-Santa.
>
> "Woohoo -- I found a 6848 at a garage sale yesterday for $2.00!"
> Referring to #6848 Strategic Pursuer (1988) or #6848 Interplanetary
> Shuttle (1985)?
>
> "Eyes Wide Shut reminds me that I gotta see Kubrick's 2001 again."
> Not referring to set #2001 Three In One (LEGO PRIMO).
>
> "867 5309 Jenny I got your number"
> Not referring to set #5309 Wagon Plate (9v Train Accessory).
>
> "Ice Planet 2002 rocks!"
> Not referring to set #2002 Jumbo Building Bag (LEGO PRIMO).
>
> "Lucas's only good flick was THX 1138."
> Not referring to set #1138 (replacement rubber wheel treads for trains).
>
> "My paternal grandmother was born in 1906."
> Not referring to set #1906 Majisto's Tower Castle.
>
> etc. etc. :-(
[snip]
Actually, you answered your own issue about the most convenient way to specify
set numbers and eliminate false positives: check for "#" followed by two or
more digits!
This does, admittedly, still expose a false positive potential with part
numbers. Perhaps the lugnet.cad hierarchy could be an exception from this in
the short term until it's a custom. OTOH, maybe they aren't currently using
"#" conventions. This also doesn't answer the identical set number issue,
but perhaps they could be dealt with differently later.
(Sorry I'm arriving so late on this thread, but it doesn't look like anyone
else said it in here.)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
