Front page | perl.golf |
Postings from August 2002
From: Tina Mueller
August 8, 2002 17:18
Message ID: Pine.SGI.4.44.0208090203210.41275146-100000@Komma.ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Stephen Turner wrote:
> I thought when I first read the problems that the factorial would be much
> shorter than the postorder
i thought that, too...
> (like 35 vs 70 or something), and that it would
> be the postorder that sorted people out. As it turned out, the factorial was
> only just shorter, and it was the factorial that sorted people out. (In
> fact, I was one of two players with postorder shorter than factorial. When
> I told Ton this he said "That's because your factorial is so long". Ouch!)
my problem was the 10**6 instead of 1e6. then my factorial and
postorder would have been the same length.
now it's so obvious...
i still don't really get that thing with ~4, but i'll sleep over it...
i like the postorder solutions, because there are quite efficient.
the normal approach would be (what i did first, too) to
write a recursive function, because trees somehow belong to
"recursive". function(root) = root . function(child) . function(child2).
but then i realized that the declaration of a sub
just takes away too many space, and i remembered that a) every
algorithm can be done non-recursive and b) perl regexes are
more powerful than one might think.
the regex solution might be a little bit slower than recursive
but it needs less memory.
anyway, glad that i made it to place 8, never expected that... =)
looking forward to the next golf,
http://www.tinita.de/ \ enter__| |__the___ _ _ ___
http://Movies.tinita.de/ \ / _` / _ \/ _ \ '_(_-< of
http://PerlQuotes.tinita.de/ \ \ _,_\ __/\ __/_| /__/ perception