Part 2 only becomes visible once you have submitted a correct entry for Part 1.
Upon successful submission, it gives you the option to “Return to Problem n”, and re-displays Part 1, along with your “correct” answer, then below that the Part 2 extension. Cheers Mike, Rob > On 11 Dec. 2016, at 7:18 pm, 'Mike Day' via Programming > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Trying the patience of the forum here, but may I ask: were both parts of the > problem > > visible all the time? After getting part one correct I started looking for > and found part > > two below part one's submission area - either it was already there, or else > it was > > revealed by the correct entry. > > > Anyway, when I did part one, I had no idea that there was a part two, hence > my silly remarks > > (in J Beta) about there being no need for recursion. > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > On 11/12/2016 04:53, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote: >> I planned (and used) conjunctions for both parts to take advantage of the >> binding preference of conjunctions. I'd need fewer parens. >> >> 4 (2 : 'm+n') 3 , 1 >> 7 1 >> 4 + 3 , 1 >> 7 5 >> >> the conjunction executes before , >> >> It refers to the R or RB in the generated string/code. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Brian Schott <[email protected]> >> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 11:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] AoC 2016 day 9 - Was Re: [Jbeta] possible memory >> leak j805 >> >> Yes, my bad. I was *blind* to the left-most 1 in the expression below. >> >> (1 +/@:".@:}.@:p1 n) >> >> But what about the rest of my questions: >> >> a) When you first did part 1 did you use a conjunction, or was the >> conjunction only needed in part 2, and so you revised part 1 to be similar? >> >> b) And you state, "a conjunction binds its (right) arguments ahead of a >> verb." Can you be specific about what verb you mean here. Is it the p1 that >> is referred to inside of RB or some other verb? >> >> By the way, I have considered putting my solution on the wiki as one NOT to >> do because it is so inefficient it takes over 2 hours. You see, I >> constructed all of the expanded strings and only counted their length after >> all was computed. I think the time may have been exaggerated by all of the >> disk swapping that must have been required. So I really was astonished by >> the speed of your solution. >> >> >> Thanks, again. >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:29 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> part 1 emits R, part 2 emits RB. RB parses the string in n argument with >>> 1&p1 (which will emit RBs recursively) >>> >>> the x argument of p1 determines whether its part 1(R) or part 2(RB) format. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
