On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:50 -0400, "Chas. Owens"
wrote:
> Your whois information suggests that you live in the US; I am always
> amazed to hear fellow Americans say things like "that book is
> expensive." We have a wonderful lending library system in this
> country, use it. If your local library d
Thanks Brian
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:37 -0400, "Brian J. Miller"
> Interesting first choice, but okay... Was there something in particular
> that you are getting hung up on?
Yeah, the complexity of chess! I'm getting there. I do miss a lot of
short-cuts and efficiencies in Perl that would help, bu
Thanks Brian
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:37 -0400, "Brian J. Miller"
> Interesting first choice, but okay... Was there something in particular
> that you are getting hung up on?
Yeah, the complexity of chess! I'm getting there. I do miss a lot of
short-cuts and efficiencies in Perl that would help, bu
So, I've done the "Learning Perl" book, and frustrating myself no end by
trying to write a chess program using just the knowledge contained in
"Learning Perl" and with no modules.
I thought about getting "Intermediate Perl", but I've heard that
"Programming Perl" is the best next step.
But, what'
Firstly, apologies for the double posting of this question.
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:49 +0200, "Thomas Bätzler"
wrote:
> How about (untested):
>
> sub display_board {
> foreach my $ref (@_){
> foreach my $piece ( @$ref ){
> print substr( $piece, -2);
> }
> }
> }
>
> The Perl wa
..$)/;
It feels like this could be done in one step. Is this correct? I'm
finding that I'm doing alright in Perl, but I sense the Perl urge to do
things in as few a number of steps as possible.
Thanks,
Richard Hobson
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For a
..$)/;
It feels like this could be done in one step. Is this correct? I'm
finding that I'm doing alright in Perl, but I sense the Perl urge to do
things in as few a number of steps as possible.
Thanks,
Richard Hobson
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For a
