20 years later I got to apply some of the same ideas to a language processing application, and it was such a pleasure to actually use something conceptual like that. Made me briefly regret landing in more hybrid infrastructure/automation roles instead of pure software development.
Somewhere I may still have my copy of Preperata and Yeh that my professor recommended at the time for further reading. Like most of my books, it was never actually read, just sat around for years.
A counter. That's the difference between theory and practice. Because in practice, everything is finite.
If you have multiple kinds of brackets then you need the same number of counters. Each counter corresponds to the number of openers of that type currently on the stack. EDIT: this is wrong. Counters can't distinguish between [() and ([)
If you're writing a parser and you want to report the location of an unclosed opening bracket then you need the actual stack.
So to generalise your point you need a counter for each transition to a different type of opener.
So (([])) needs only 2 counters, not 3.
You could constrain it further if certain types of openers are only valid in certain cases so you could exclude certain types of transitions.
EDIT:
([)] could indeed be handled by just additionally tracking the current open type. (([]]) is a better example, as it shows that to handle deeper nesting you need additional pieces of data that will grow at some rate (at most by the number of opens, possibly lower depending on which types can validly appear within which types)
bool balanced(const string& text, const string& open, const string& close) {
size_t length = text.size(), brackets = open.size();
assert(close.size() == brackets);
stack<char> buffer;
for (size_t index = 0; index < length; ++index) {
char ch = text[index];
for (size_t slot = 0; slot < brackets; ++slot) {
if (ch == open[slot])
buffer.push(ch);
else if (ch == close[slot]) {
if (buffer.empty() || buffer.top() != open[slot])
return false;
buffer.pop();
}
}
}
return buffer.empty();
}Indeed! https://neilmadden.blog/2019/02/24/why-you-really-can-parse-...
(([[()])) -> ok ((([](])) -> not ok
Hope OP gets this message.
On day-to-day basis you will never encounter this problem in pure form. As the consequence the solutions are not good for the day-to-day stuff.
Even if you only are only writting a verifier (which is already a bit unrealistic), you'll need to say something more than "not balanced". Probably rather something along the lines of "closing brace without a matching opening at [position]" or "[n] unclosed parentheses at <end of stream>" which rules out the simple recursive regex approach (counter still works).
EDIT: It gets complicated if you need to count multiple different types of openers. In that case I think you need the stack, at least unless there are constraints on which openers can occur within others - you at the very least need to know which closer you're looking for right now, but if you can't deduce what is outside, you obviously then need to keep track of it.
In practice, of course, we'll generally use a stack because it's just pointless to make life harder by not using one for this.
I still enjoy writing code like the code in TFA, but these days people seem a lot less interested in code than organizing their agentic LLMs, so I don't have the same incentive to share whatI find interesting. And it would be terrible marketing, like showing up to audition for a job driving F1... In a Jaguar E-Type.
Elegant and beautiful, but that isn't the game any more.