Front page | perl.fwp |
Postings from December 2001
Rick Klement <rklement@pacbell.net> writes:
> Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 4, Andrew.Savige@ir.com said:
>>
>> >This game has proved more popular than I expected!
>> >I am travelling for the next day or so and my family
>> >are starting to ask what am I doing locked away in the
>> >computer room. So, please keep sending me your entries,
>> >but in the interests of torturing your opponents, feel
>> >free to also post your tsanta.pl-verified golf score
>> >(not source!) directly to fwp.
>>
>> As goaded, I'm now at 92, thanks to a word or two of wisdom from
>> Piers; sans assistance, I'm at 94, and I don't see much room for
>> deprovement.
>>
>
> I'm now at 92 with no assistance :)
Cool.
> Mine are all simple straightforward perl, with only one using a
> command line switch, and then just with the obvious usage, none of
> this hinted trickery. I guess I'm just not trying hard enough. :)
Hmm. Oh yeah, I just got rid of the -p trickery I was using in wc.pl.
Shame about the 'all on one line' rule or I'd be down to 90 now... How
Eugene got down to 89 is a completely mystery though.
> I AM very curious about the "creative-in-the-extreme" entries, and
> it's going to a long tough wait to see some of these interesting
> efforts.
I think the particular 'creative in the extreme' entry that Andrew was
referring to was my head.pl that printed 10 lines then crashed using:
#!perl -p
11..&
(I don't think it's really a secret any more, I've posted it on my
use.perl journal already so what the hell)
> (Of course, I'd also like to see the "best score per hole", but I
> guess that got "voted down".)
Seems so. I'd like to know what the best scores per hole are.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next