Having got 3936 LOC through a 4000 LOC implementation, I thought I'd
do some recreational
hacking and do an old old program I've not looked at for some time -
Eliza. You all know Eliza well enough for me not to have to spell it
out. The challenge is to implement or dig up an Eliza program (you
don't have to write it yourself) in your favourite FPL. Note that the
script that drives Eliza's responses should not be counted towards the
LOC count. Some constraints.

1. The script itself should be changeable by any novice. That is to
say that it should not
be a pile of hard-wired code written in the native language of
the program or require
deep programming skills.

2. The program should receive keyboard input from the user -
including the usual punctuation
and any characters he wants to enter without crashing.

On 22 Feb, 11:49, Mark Tarver ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

On Feb 22, 5:59 am, Mark Tarver ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

On 22 Feb, 22:09, William James yahoo.com> wrote:

On Feb 22, 7:12 pm, Mark Tarver ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

Symbols begin with ":".

Lists (arrays to Rubyists) are enclosed in [], but they
can be omitted sometimes, e.g.:
a = 22,33,44

"<<" appends to a list:
[6,7,8] << 9
==>[6, 7, 8, 9]

The index of the first element in a list is 0:
[6,7,8][0]
==>6

På Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:09:58 +0100, skrev William James
yahoo.com>:

in q:

D:(("1 father|mother|brother|sister 2";"tell me about your 0.");
("1 am|i'm 2";"why are you 2|have you always been 2?");
("1 i 2";"why do you 2?");
("1 you 2";"we're talking about you, not me.|please don't be so personal"))

E:"|"vs"that's very interesting. do go on.|
tell me more|
i'm not sure i understand you fully|
can you elaborate on that?"

S:{(`$"|"vs first w where not b;raze w where b:(first each w:" "vs x)in"0123456789")}each D[;0]
R:"|"vs'D[;1]
P:{(y,x,z)(x,y)?z}[`$("you";"your";"yourself";"i'm";"i am");`$("i";"my";"myself";"you are";"you're")]

e:{w:(`$" "vs x except".?")except`; / words except punctuation, blanks
b:w in\:/:S[;0]; / boolean mask: words X rules
if[count[b]=i:(any each b)?1b;:E first 1?count E]; / if no key match on a rule, early exit
p:1_'(0,1+k:b[i]?1b)_`,w; / split input on key
r:{x first 1?count x}R i; / pick a rule
n:r first raze r ss/:"0123456789"; / which part of input to replace
ssr[r;n;" "sv string(),P each(w[k],p)"I"$n]} / construct reply

Stevan Apter wrote:

thanks for asking ken.

e:{$[(#b)=i:(|/'b:(w@:&~(w:(`$" "\:x@&~x in".?"))in`)in\:/:A)?1b;E@*1?#E
" "~n:c@*,/(c:{x@*1?#x}C i)ss/:N;c
.q.ssr[c;n;" "/:$(),P'(w[k],p:1_'(0,1+k:b[i]?1b)_`,w)"I"$n]]}

it's just a single eye-watering case statement:

if no keyword match in A, then return a default response from E
else if no substitution in the response c picked from C, return c
else substitute and return

it's easier to break the q code into smaller chunks. a revised version
here: http://www.nsl.com/k/eliza.q

"Ken Tilton" optonline.net> wrote in message news:47c0813e$0$8080$607ed4bc@cv.net...

I'm not a programmer. I just wanted to have some fun, so I tried to
write a Mathematica version based on the Ruby version (the only one I
actually understood). I'm sure that this can be improved and written
in a nicer way, but here it goes: :-)

script = {
{__, u : "father" | "mother" | "brother" | "sister", ___} :> {"Tell
me about your " <> v <> "."},
{___, "am" | "i'm", u__} :> {"Why are you " <> v <> "?", "Have you
always been " <> v <> "?"},
{___, "i", u__} :> {"Why do you " <> v <> "?"},
{___, "you", ___} :> {"We're talking about you, not me", "Please
don't be so personal."},
{u___} :> {"That's very interesting. Do go on.", "Tell me more.",
"I'm not sure that I understand you fully.",
"Can you elaborate on that?",
"Why do you think that " <> v <> "?"}
};

script = script /. v :> processSegment[{u}];