On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:02:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marius Ascheberg)
wrote:
For all other countries, I've nothing so far. Can anyone help?
http://www.uni-koeln.de/~arcd2/3d.htm
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/postal.html , by the Kermit people, may
also be of interest.
Cheers,
Philip
On 01 Jan 2003 21:54:25 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L.
Schwartz) wrote:
Philip == Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philip You're not allowed to compare numbers? That will make it difficult to
Philip find out when the list is sorted.
use ESP::Psychic qw(infer_sortedness);
Ah
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:41:38 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Artist
Google) wrote:
Well,
I am not looking for randomly achieved solutions.
and looking for minimum steps to achieve solution.
I thought that was obvious.
I was being sarcastic.
I thought *that* was obvious.
Cheers,
Philip
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:02:58 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Artist
Google) wrote:
Hi,
I have this puzzle.
Given N numbers, N4, you have to sort the numbers.
The only operation permitted is you can rotate any
sequencial 4 numbers in reverse order. or you can
roate the entire list
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:35:11 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Lembark)
wrote:
-- Andrew Molyneux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd probably do:
my ($max, $sep, $end) = @_;
Yes, becuase if you did it this way you'd get $end equal
to the integer coult of the number of list arguments passed
plus one
On 17 Feb 02, at 11:05, Patrik Grip-Jansson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Philip Newton wrote:
Well, not really C since you rely on '//' introducing a
comment-to-end-of-line. That's a C++-ism which some C compilers support
but which isn't part of the C standard.
No, you're wrong
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:02:43 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 07:35:24AM +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:42:55 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Savige)
wrote:
you have a choice of 3 different languages (Perl, C or C++). ^.^
Well
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:55:27 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Makholm)
wrote:
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, not really C since you rely on '//' introducing a
comment-to-end-of-line.
I cannot find the C99 standard. But it looks like '//' was introduced
as comment-to-end
On 18 Feb 02, at 10:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Newton wrote:
Well, existing compilers tend to be slow to implement new
standards such as C99
So for my purposes, standard C is ANSI C i.e. KR 2nd ed.. YMMV.
Interestingly, in this particular case, many vendors are very
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:05:14 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vicki Brown) wrote:
It took me a while to find the problem... when I did I was somewhat amused
--- Begin Forward ---
if (...) {
my @item_parts = split(/\n/, $item);
printf ORDER (\n%4d
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:33:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill -Osx- Jones)
wrote:
Not to be dumb as a stump, but are you saying that - under Win32 -
STDERR would not appear in the console window? That, because of
possibly internal Win32 issues, it must always be sent to a file?
What I think
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:24:05 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Lateur)
wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 12:35:13 -0800 , Pradeep Sethi wrote:
and I want to use regexp , without using sprinf.
!?!?!!
WTF is wrong with sprintf()? It's a proper tool for this job. Next
you'll want to replace
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:58:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G
Schwern) wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:24:47AM -0500, Bill -OSX- Jones wrote:
$c = grep {/[osx]/i} @_;
Regardless, the {} there is redundant and actually slows you down a
bit (Perl has to enter/leave that block on each
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:34:30 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith C. Ivey)
wrote:
But s'\x0\xff' @' to make it shorter and more visible on my system.
y(s))y) ?
Cheers,
Philip
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:10:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ryan Fischer)
wrote:
This should do it I think:
/[a-zA-Z]/==3/[0-9]/==2/^.{5,}$/;
Pattern match in scalar context returns true or false, so the maximum
number is 1. You'll never get 3 out of a pattern match in scalar context
(and ==
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:25:02 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff 'Japhy'
Pinyan) wrote:
I'd probably include capitalized operators in the obscure group
Which capitalised operators? NE, LT, and friends?
I think they went away in bleadperl... didn't they?
Cheers,
Philip
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:50:11 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ronald J Kimball) wrote:
(y/a-zA-Z// 2) (y/0-9// 1)
Each numeric comparison will return either 1 or 0.
In my experience, 1 or , rather than 1 or 0. Or is FALSE (PL_NO?) a
special value which looks like 0 to operators that care, such
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:58:03 +1100 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Savige)
wrote:
*** Hole 4 (mid.pl) ***
--- Piers Cawley - 25
#!/usr/bin/perl -p0
$_=$1while/.(^.+)^/ms
--- Rick Delaney - 25
#!/usr/bin/perl -p0
$_=$1while/.^(.+)^/sm
--- Karsten
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:33:45 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Philippe 'Book' Bruhat) wrote:
it's straightforward Perl, as documented in Amelia
What's Amelia?
Cheers,
Philip
On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 13:46:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Lateur)
wrote:
Also intersting to note is its behaviour WRT perl booleans. As you know,
(or should know ;-)), is that these have a dual nature: a boolean false
is 0 in numerical context, and in string context. Well, apparently ~
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:49:04 + (GMT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Jonathan e. paton) wrote:
I honestly think I've found the only true solution, which
is:
perl -p
Hm? How does this print only the middle line of a file?
Cheers,
Philip
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:02:57 -0500, in perl.fwp you wrote:
foreach my $num (0..255) {
my $chr = chr $num;
$U2P{$chr} = $chr =~ tr/\x20-\x7F// ? $chr : '\\'.sprintf(%03o,$num);
}
That should be \x20-\x7E, I think. \x7F is a control character (DEL,
\c?).
Cheers,
Philip
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:05:54 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley)
wrote:
#!/usr/bin/perl6
sub is_number ($number) { return +$number eq 'NaN' }
s/eq/ne/ ?
Cheers,
Philip
23 matches
Mail list logo
