Again FWIW, I _did_ use an array for this problem, which allows an all-at-once solution. There are only two colours!
Whether it's my lack of ingenuity or otherwise, I find I need to resort more to explicit loops for the later Euler problems than for the earlier ones. Mike On 20/10/2011 2:21 PM, David Vaughan wrote: > I find it interesting how different my approach has to be if I want a J > solution compared to a C or Java solution. I often try to impose my > imperative version onto J and start getting stuck trying to express it, such > as in this case. I often find that I can't really use J for the solution > because of the size of the array I'd have to create / or in general the > memory required - I'm sure there's some other way round it. > > On 20 Oct 2011, at 13:21, Mike Day wrote: > >> Yes, I'm sure it is Euler 121. I don't think the actual answer has been >> posted in this thread, so that's ok. >> >> FWIW, my solution (a few years old, now) appears not to have used >> the comb verb. On this machine, it runs in ~0.05 sec using ~1MB of >> space. >> >> I wish all my Euler solutions were as nifty. >> >> Mike >> >> On 20/10/2011 8:07 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: >>> Is this euler 121? >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:24 PM, David Vaughan<[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> Thanks, this was the method I had envisaged. I wasn't thinking about it in >>>> the J way originally - this is something I'm trying to work on. >>>> >>>> >> ..........[ I've snipped the rest - Mike] >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
