Well, it certainly qualifies, as it produces the results specified! It
also meets my "no function" criterion, as using an explicit state
variable certainly isn't the same thing (IMHO) as using a function.
It doesn't work the same way as my original solution, but that just
makes it even more interesting, at least to me. It's nice to see how
many ways it could be done.
I'll wait just a little bit longer before posting my version, to see
we can come up with any more variations on this theme.
HINT: Try writing it without modifying another variable.
-jn-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Does this qualify? Probably not what you were looking for (actually, just
> building the "function" into the definition of 'e):
>
> >> n: 0
> == 0
> >> e: [ 'e pick "fg" (n: (n + 1) // 2) + 1 ]
> == ['e pick "fg" (n: (n + 1) // 2) + 1]
> >> print e
> e f
> >> print e
> e g
> >> print e
> e f
> >> print e
> e g
>
