Re: LA pm golf

On Apr 13, 2002 at 13:42:25 +, Ton Hospel wrote: > > Then there is the $^T that's sometimes used and makes solutions depend > on when they run. I propose to formulate the rules so that a program > only has to be valid during the period that the contest runs. 1970 or > whatever your computers

Re: LA pm golf

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stefan `Sec` Zehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 09:22:11PM +, Ton Hospel wrote: >> the accumulator must be a string so you get magic ++ >> If you let it go from undef, it's a numeric ++ > > Oh. How embarrassing. I totally missed

Re: LA pm golf

On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 09:22:11PM +, Ton Hospel wrote: > the accumulator must be a string so you get magic ++ > If you let it go from undef, it's a numeric ++ Oh. How embarrassing. I totally missed the point of why these solutions even work :(. I think I should stop staring at the post morte

Re: LA pm golf

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stefan `Sec` Zehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 11:45:33AM +, Ton Hospel wrote: >> Ok, this one is now finished too. >> There is no post-mortem link yet, but you can find it at >> http://la.pm.org/cgi-bin/PGAS/post_mortem.cgi?id=1

Re: LA pm golf

On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 11:45:33AM +, Ton Hospel wrote: > Ok, this one is now finished too. > There is no post-mortem link yet, but you can find it at > http://la.pm.org/cgi-bin/PGAS/post_mortem.cgi?id=1 Can someone explain to me why the winning solution of -li0 $,=pop;sub p{map&p,1..$,--;++

Re: LA pm golf

Karsten, Ton and Rick, you all did indeed do a great job! In fact, everyone did a great job just by submitting :) I just want to thank all the players for playing (without you this wasn't possible), Dave, Jerome and the rest for doing a great job on PGAS, O'Reilly and Marsee Henon for sponsorin

Re: LA pm golf

Hello All! Factorials LAPM GC1 was just great! Congratulations to Karsten and Ton and Rick, you all deserve admiration. Rick Myers wrote: > On Apr 13, 2002 at 11:45:33 +, Ton Hospel wrote: >> >> -l for$.(++$_..pop){s!.!$.*"$&.$'"%($`?10:$^T)!eg}print > > Hmm.. Well, the ++$_ would've been

Re: LA pm golf

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Apr 13, 2002 at 11:45:33 +, Ton Hospel wrote: >> >> The really interesting entry is in fact the one by Rick Myers >> because it can be trivially improved to 54: >> >> -l for$.(++$_..pop){s!.!$.*"$&.$'"%($`?1

Re: LA pm golf

In article , [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ton Hospel) writes: > Ok, this one is now finished too. > There is no post-mortem link yet, but you can find it at > http://la.pm.org/cgi-bin/PGAS/post_mortem.cgi?id=1 > > It's won by Spifff with an entry that the judges of tpr

Re: LA pm golf

On Apr 13, 2002 at 11:45:33 +, Ton Hospel wrote: > > The really interesting entry is in fact the one by Rick Myers > because it can be trivially improved to 54: > > -l for$.(++$_..pop){s!.!$.*"$&.$'"%($`?10:$^T)!eg}print Hmm.. Well, the ++$_ would've been good for 60, but the twist of movi