En op zeventien oktober tweeduizendtwee sprak (-ugene:
> So what rule are they using to score their solutions?
I don't know. The arbiter in this game is mjd and he has yet to
deliver a verdict. If I were arbiter, however, I would declare the
winner without hesitation as Eugene van der Pijll, with (sic):
sub subst {
my $a;
join '', map {++$a%2 ? $_ : eval} split /(\$\d+)/, shift;
}
You can't help but admire all that lovely white space -- and, look!
he used shift instead of pop. Seeing (-ugene do that was almost as
surreal as watching `/anick favour the eccentric 'length' over the
normal 'y///c'.
If Brother van der Pijll is not declared the winner, I vote that we
declare war on the perl-qotw mailing list.
It may be too soon to start golfing this, but a more normal
interpretation of (-ugene's brilliancy is something like:
sub subst{join'',map--$|?$_:eval,split/(\$\d+)/,$_[$|=0]}
if you allow the subroutine to mangle $| (admittedly dubious).
Can anyone do better?
Original problem specification:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Write a subroutine, 'subst', which gets a string argument, $s. It
should search $s and replace any occurrences of "$1" with the current
value of $1, any occurrences of "$2" with the current value of $2,
and so on.
For example, if $1, $2, and $3 happen to be "dogs", "fish" and
"carrots", then
subst("$2, $1 and $3")
should return
"fish, dogs, and carrots"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: You should not mangle other stuff in the string, otherwise the
solution would be a trivial subst{eval"\"@_\""}.
/-\
http://careers.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Careers
- 1,000's of jobs waiting online for you!
