This is a flexible class for comparing pairs of sequences of any
type, so long as the sequence elements are hashable. The basic
algorithm predates, and is a little fancier than, an algorithm
published in the late 1980's by Ratcliff and Obershelp under the
hyperbolic name ``gestalt pattern matching.'' The idea is to find
the longest contiguous matching subsequence that contains no
``junk'' elements (the Ratcliff and Obershelp algorithm doesn't
address junk). The same idea is then applied recursively to the
pieces of the sequences to the left and to the right of the matching
subsequence. This does not yield minimal edit sequences, but does
tend to yield matches that ``look right'' to people.
Timing: The basic Ratcliff-Obershelp algorithm is cubic
time in the worst case and quadratic time in the expected case.
SequenceMatcher is quadratic time for the worst case and has
expected-case behavior dependent in a complicated way on how many
elements the sequences have in common; best case time is linear.
This is a class for comparing sequences of lines of text, and
producing human-readable differences or deltas. Differ uses
SequenceMatcher both to compare sequences of lines, and to
compare sequences of characters within similar (near-matching)
lines.
Each line of a Differ delta begins with a two-letter code:
Code
Meaning
'- '
line unique to sequence 1
'+ '
line unique to sequence 2
' '
line common to both sequences
'? '
line not present in either input sequence
Lines beginning with `? ' attempt to guide the eye to
intraline differences, and were not present in either input
sequence. These lines can be confusing if the sequences contain tab
characters.
Return a list of the best ``good enough'' matches. word is a
sequence for which close matches are desired (typically a string),
and possibilities is a list of sequences against which to
match word (typically a list of strings).
Optional argument n (default 3) is the maximum number
of close matches to return; n must be greater than 0.
Optional argument cutoff (default 0.6) is a float in
the range [0, 1]. Possibilities that don't score at least that
similar to word are ignored.
The best (no more than n) matches among the possibilities are
returned in a list, sorted by similarity score, most similar first.
Compare a and b (lists of strings); return a
Differ-style delta (a generator generating the delta lines).
Optional keyword parameters linejunk and charjunk are
for filter functions (or None):
linejunk: A function that should accept a single string
argument, and return true if the string is junk (or false if it is
not). The default is module-level function
IS_LINE_JUNK(), which filters out lines without visible
characters, except for at most one pound character ("#").
charjunk: A function that should accept a string of length 1.
The default is module-level function IS_CHARACTER_JUNK(),
which filters out whitespace characters (a blank or tab; note: bad
idea to include newline in this!).
Tools/scripts/ndiff.py is a command-line front-end to this
function.
>>> diff = ndiff('one\ntwo\nthree\n'.splitlines(1),
... 'ore\ntree\nemu\n'.splitlines(1)))
>>> print ''.join(diff),
- one
? ^
+ ore
? ^
- two
- three
? -
+ tree
+ emu
Return one of the two sequences that generated a delta.
Given a sequence produced by Differ.compare() or
ndiff(), extract lines originating from file 1 or 2
(parameter which), stripping off line prefixes.
Example:
>>> diff = ndiff('one\ntwo\nthree\n'.splitlines(1),
... 'ore\ntree\nemu\n'.splitlines(1))
>>> diff = list(diff) # materialize the generated delta into a list
>>> print ''.join(restore(diff, 1)),
one
two
three
>>> print ''.join(restore(diff, 2)),
ore
tree
emu
Return true for ignorable lines. The line line is ignorable
if line is blank or contains a single "#",
otherwise it is not ignorable. Used as a default for parameter
linejunk in ndiff().
Return true for ignorable characters. The character ch is
ignorable if ch is a space or tab, otherwise it is not
ignorable. Used as a default for parameter charjunk in
ndiff().
See Also:
Pattern Matching: The Gestalt Approach
Discussion of a
similar algorithm by John W. Ratcliff and D. E. Metzener.
This was published in
Dr. Dobb's Journal in
July, 1988.