On May 5, 11:37 pm, Ross <ross.j...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 10:33 am, MRAB <goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: > > > Here's my approach (incomplete): > > FYI... I was testing your code further and discovered a strange > outcome... when there are 16 people for 7 courts, every 7th > round your code produces 4 byes instead of the correct 2 byes.
Well, MRAB did say his was incomplete, and it's significantly shorter and cleaner than mine. Mine has even weirder-looking behavior at 16 players on 7 courts, but I think it's because mine tries harder to keep things balanced. After a few rounds, the inequalities start to build up, and my routine picks some people more often to "catch up", but it doesn't prevent the same person from being scheduled for multiple matches the same week. There may also be other, more subtle ways mine is broken. It also may be that the problem is inherently unsolvable for some values. (I'm still waiting for someone with sufficient math ability to swoop in and either provide a way that works for all values, or confirm that there are just some unavoidable pathological cases.) John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
