"Scott David Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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]
Well *I'm* certainly looking forward to learning some new tricks! My (non-cheat) version is a comparatively-portly 245, and no alternatives are popping into my head at the moment! -- Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
