> From: "Dave Hoover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 20:50:21 -0500
>
> Lars wrote:
> > After looking at the postmortem, I don't quite understand why BoB
> > didn't come up with something like this for 61.44:
> >
> > map!s/
> > ^/ /m|//||print,sort%/for map$/{_,sort/./g}.=$_,sort<>
>
> Because BoB is very tired.
I don't blame him.
> Jerome has been in the hospital since Thursday (drop him a line and
> wish him well),
Done!
> From: "Keith C. Ivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:19:03 -0400
>
> Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Same as above].
>
> BoB did use %% for the hash, which is just as good as %/, as
> well as o for the start of the hash key, which is just as good
> as _.
Well, BoB's last attempt was a 62.44:
map!s/$
^/ /m|//||print,sort%%for map$%{_,sort/./g}.=$_,sort<>
If the unnecessary $ at the end of line 1 hadn't snuck in, it would
have been equivalent to the one I gave. I just changed %% to %/ to
maximize the toothpick effect.
> The thing that lowers the tiebreaker in your suggestion
> is really the use of ^ and the /m modifier in place of \b,
> which allows you to eliminate \ and b while introducing only ^
> as a new character (m was already in map).
Yes, and that was the trick that got me from 61.46 to 61.44 --- the
trick I missed was replacing %0 and 0 by something else.
And since BoB posted his last attempt with only 80 minutes to go, I'm
not sure I'd have had time to catch up if he had beat me.
> Congratulations on your win!
Thanks!
Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Humour NOT marked)
