Remi Villatel wrote: > Tim Hochberg wrote: > >>> I am currently at 39 bytes following the requirements and the >>> principle given above (my module passes the test). Anyone able to >>> beat that? > >> Wow! It'll be interesting to see how to do that. The obvious way gives >> 53 bytes. Hmmm, I'll have to see what can be done... > > 39 bytes... 53 bytes... It gives me the impression to follow a jet plane > with a bike with my 179 bytes! > > There isn't a single superfluous byte. My code is so compressed that the > syntactic colorizer can't cope any more. > > I definitively need a new algorythm. <g> > And I am sadly stuck at 169. Not even spitting distance from 149 (which sounds like a non-cheat version).
--Scott David Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
