On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 14:48 Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote: > > Reproducing the original string exactly the best I've managed is 260: > > That's a bit long, don't you think, as it can be beaten even by plain old > zipping: >
ha! tbh yes It's longer than I was expecting to manage. $ cat booltable2.py > from codecs > > import*;print(decode(decode(b'eJzjUgABp/z8nNTEPAX/gtSixJL8omIuXRwArFyBK6SoNFUhMS9FAczILAbTCFG3xJxisDCYwQXh\nIitHF0fTADEpvwiL8UBBuGKwKISHrhYuim6yX34JmitAIqhGcgEAEnJWfA==\n',"base64"),"zip").decode())$ $ wc -c booltable2.py > 210 booltable2.py > Well, ok, but mine is at least parseable by a sufficiently masochistic human, though I suppose that was never given as a requirement :D (You could also shave off 4 more bytes by importing `decode` as `d` rather than your nice `import*` trick, because you call it 3 times) > [snip] > > :) > :D On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 17:50 Thomas Jollans <t...@tjol.eu> wrote: > Touché. > > You're still missing some whitespace, though ;-) (like, I think, > everybody else in this weird international obfuscated Python competition) > I guess you still didn't run it ;D (see the 2nd `for` statement). I diffed my output against the original, which is why I'm confident in the correctness of my solution ;) Actually I managed to shave off another byte by changing `l.insert(i,'')` to `l[i:i]=['']`, so now I'm on 259. I should probably stop now... -- -- Matt Wheeler http://funkyh.at -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
