Re: Golf and the Perl Review

Ton Hospel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mm, assuming a filter of lower case ascii input, nothing allowed > to stderr, my first attempt is 44 I think. I don't think lowercase is a safe assumption. The contest said Convert a base 36 number, with the digits [0-9A-Z], to its base 10 repre

OT: Google?

OT: See: http://www.google.com/programming-contest/ :] _Sx ('>-Sx- IUDICIUM //\ Have Computer - v_/_Will Hack...

RE: Golf and the Perl Review

Patrick Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As an aside, I'd say that in general I think of "math problem" > golf holes as functions, and "text mangling" holes as > file-suckers. At least it's something to consider for those who > may be working on Games::Golf. :) How are functions scored? The

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Krahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ton Hospel wrote: >> mm, assuming a filter of lower case ascii input, nothing allowed to stderr, >> my first attempt is 44 I think. > > I've got one at 28 (if I'm counting correctly) > Impressive. that's about

RE: Golf and the Perl Review

It definitely sounds to me like we're supposed to be writing a function. That way we don't worry about where the inputs and outputs are necessarily going. In that case, I'm at 73, but considering my beginner status, I'm sure that's fairly awful. As an aside, I'd say that in general I think of "ma

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

Ton Hospel wrote: > > In article , > Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephen Turner wrote: > >> > >> I've got 50 now. > > > > 48 (in the "converting a whole file" game). I really ought to stop playing > >

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

In article , Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephen Turner wrote: >> >> I've got 50 now. > > 48 (in the "converting a whole file" game). I really ought to stop playing > this until we know the rules though

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephen Turner wrote: > > I've got 50 now. 48 (in the "converting a whole file" game). I really ought to stop playing this until we know the rules though... -- Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UKhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/ "This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephen Turner wrote: > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Rick Klement wrote: > > > > However, assuming a filter program like most of the recent golf > > holes (reading a file with base36 numbers and writing out the decimal > > equivalent for each line), I'm down to 51 strokes. > > > > W

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Feb 8, Stephen Turner said: >On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Rick Klement wrote: >> >> However, assuming a filter program like most of the recent golf >> holes (reading a file with base36 numbers and writing out the decimal >> equivalent for each line), I'm down to 51 strokes. > >Well, it does say "conve

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Rick Klement wrote: > > However, assuming a filter program like most of the recent golf > holes (reading a file with base36 numbers and writing out the decimal > equivalent for each line), I'm down to 51 strokes. > Well, it does say "convert _a_ number". But assuming your ru

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:31:51AM -0800, Rick Klement wrote: > > It's unclear to me how burying one's head in the sand will help > improve a golf score :) It's more to not hear people jeering at me. :-) dha -- David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Oh, the irony.

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

"David H. Adler" wrote: > > Finally, although you'll all laugh at me, I'm down to 66 strokes on the > issue 0 challange. Not horrible for a first real golf attempt. > > How much further have you all gotten. I just want to know how far to > bury my head in the ground... :-) Golf scores are ver

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 08:05:21PM +0100, Jerome Quelin wrote: > On Vendredi 8 Février 2002 19:29, David H. Adler wrote : > > Finally, although you'll all laugh at me, I'm down to 66 strokes on the > > issue 0 challange. Not horrible for a first real golf attempt. > > How much further have yo

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 01:29:06PM -0500, David H. Adler wrote: > Finally, although you'll all laugh at me, I'm down to 66 strokes on the > issue 0 challange. Not horrible for a first real golf attempt. > > How much further have you all gotten. I just want to know how far to > bury my head in t

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Vendredi 8 Février 2002 19:29, David H. Adler wrote : > Obviously, the module will probably come in handy... We'll advise fwp when a pre-release will be available. > Finally, although you'll all laugh at me, I'm down to 66 strokes on the > issue 0 challange. Not horrible for a first real go

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 04:50:46PM +0100, Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat wrote: > > Please note that a small team of already 6 persons (Dave Hoover, Steffen > Muller, Jonathan E. Paton, Jerome Quelin Eugene van der Pijll, me and maybe > Andrew Savige) are working to design a module named Games::Golf. Wh

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

En réponse à Jeff Bisbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What about a web solution. Maybe use golf.perl.org. All your really need > is a text field that will accept the golf snippet. What is also cool is > that if use something like use.perl.org, where thre are logins so we can > have a clear winner an

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

What about a web solution. Maybe use golf.perl.org. All your really need is a text field that will accept the golf snippet. What is also cool is that if use something like use.perl.org, where thre are logins so we can have a clear winner and also capture what time they submitted their answer.

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Agreed. We should make things as easy as possible for the "customer". > No modules to install. Just download and run the test program. > I also feel it essential to support at least Windows (both NT > and 95/98) and Unix clients. What about a web s

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

Greetings, On Friday, February 8, 2002, at 09:24 AM, Bart Lateur wrote: >> # redirect STDERR to our logfile. >> open(STDERR,">&LOG") or >> die "Couldn't redirect STDERR to >> $SETTINGS->{files}->{\"log\"}: $!"; >> > Hmm... you're still redirecting STDERR to a file. > > What you can't

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

>Hmm... you're still redirecting STDERR to a file. > >What you can't do, is redirect STDERR to a tied filehandle, or to >STDOUT, and hope to capture it all. Oh. Duh. Dammit. Early morning stupidity. Sorry. -- Morbus Iff ( softcore vulcan pr0n rulez ) http://www.disobey.com/ && http://w

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:06:03 -0500, Morbus Iff wrote: >Not sure what you mean, here. I've been using this code in the >crossplatform AmphetaDesk [1], and it's been working fine (collecting >thousands of warnings from a Win32::GUI, IO:: kills, etc.): > > # open our log file, turn on autoflush,

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

>I think the main problem on Win95/98 is capturing STDERR, isn't it? The >module installation modules, ExtUtils::MakeMaker, have (or have had) the >same problem. > >Redirecting to another file handle doesn't work. You need the file. Not sure what you mean, here. I've been using this code in

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:00:48 +0100, Bart Lateur wrote: >At least, this appears to be working: > > #! perl -l > open STDERR, ">errors.txt"; > warn "This goes to the file, date = ".localtime > print "Result: " . `perl otherscript.pl`; But only (as intended) with a semicolon

Re: Golf and the Perl Review

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:35:06 +1100 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Jerome Quelin wrote: >> I think the arbiter program could (should?) be a module, but not >> the "client" part. > >Agreed. We should make things as easy as possible for the "customer". >No modules to install. Just download and run the