On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
> En op 9 ogustus 2002 sprak Stephen Turner:
> > Yes, I hadn't realised until I tried to use it in this tournament that the
> > $^I trick isn't as clever as it deserves to be, because $^I is the only $^x
> > that you can't write in only two characte
En op 9 ogustus 2002 sprak Stephen Turner:
> Yes, I hadn't realised until I tried to use it in this tournament that the
> $^I trick isn't as clever as it deserves to be, because $^I is the only $^x
> that you can't write in only two characters.
Apart from $^M and $^J.
(-ugene
--
It is when I s
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
> En op 9 ogustus 2002 sprak Michael W Thelen:
> > Actually, this is kind of an interesting question... what are the various ways
> > that people have used to get a value of 1 into a variable? These aren't all
> > very good, but here's what I can
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Juho Snellman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 10:24:52AM -0600, Michael W Thelen wrote:
> > Actually, this is kind of an interesting question... what are the
> > various ways that people have used to get a value of 1 into a
> > variable?
>
> #!perl -i1
>
> No sense in usin
En op 9 ogustus 2002 sprak Michael W Thelen:
> Actually, this is kind of an interesting question... what are the various ways
> that people have used to get a value of 1 into a variable? These aren't all
> very good, but here's what I can think of:
$^F/2 . I'm a bit surprised that Marko Nippula
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 10:24:52AM -0600, Michael W Thelen wrote:
> Actually, this is kind of an interesting question... what are the
> various ways that people have used to get a value of 1 into a
> variable?
#!perl -i1
No sense in using it, of course, since the name of the variable sucks.
--
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 04:49:39PM +0100, Jasper McCrea wrote:
> > Another possibility may be to take the
> > first digit of $^T... an approach that may be valid for all places (if the
> > system clock is correct), but not for all times. In particular, it should fail
> > beginning April 17, 2033.
Michael W Thelen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:53:56AM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote:
> > By the way, isn't it incredibly annoying that there isn't a single Perl
> > variable which defaults to 1? (My UID is 1000, which would have worked well,
> > but I doubted it met the "work everywhere" c
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:53:56AM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote:
> By the way, isn't it incredibly annoying that there isn't a single Perl
> variable which defaults to 1? (My UID is 1000, which would have worked well,
> but I doubted it met the "work everywhere" constraint. :-)
That is the single
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Tina Mueller wrote:
>
> i like the postorder solutions, because there are quite efficient.
> the normal approach would be (what i did first, too) to
> write a recursive function, because trees somehow belong to
> "recursive". function(root) = root . function(child) . function(
En op 09 augustus 2002 sprak Stephen Turner:
> Ah yes, the good old "luck" approach!
The what the $#?!!?? -- that can't possibly work approach.
But it does, and the test program is sound, so it must be right.
I have used this so often, I feel like applying for a patent. :)
> By the way, isn't it
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Juho Snellman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:31:44AM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote:
> > So, the empty regexp lets $` escape. How did you discover
> > that? Was it a brilliant insight, did you already know it, or was it (more
> > likely, in my experience) a fluke born out of
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 02:18:11AM +0200, Tina Mueller wrote:
>
> i still don't really get that thing with ~4, but i'll sleep over it...
~4 is just another way of getting something that ends with 1, and
obviously it has better tiebreaking score than +1. But as it doesn't
work on 64-bit architect
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Stephen Turner wrote:
> I thought when I first read the problems that the factorial would be much
> shorter than the postorder
i thought that, too...
> (like 35 vs 70 or something), and that it would
> be the postorder that sorted people out. As it turned out, the factorial
In article ,
Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And of course, congratulations to Ton and the other referees for a
> well-designed and well-run competition. Interesting holes, solutions always
> judged promptly, exciting races until the end, and by far the best test
> script we'v
15 matches
Mail list logo
