Lars Henrik Mathiesen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've made a quick rundown of the methods used in the solutions that
> got under a score of 80 (as an arbitrary cutoff).
[snip excellent analysis/summary]
Thanks for that. I wonder if there are any other methods with
potential. The only other one I came up with started with
sort map"@{[sort/./g]}_$_",<>
but at the time it looked like it would need a mammoth effort to
extract the anagram sets in size order. Perhaps it's doable using a
technique similar to your winning one?
> In conclusion: There's more than one way to skin a cat, but still only
> a finite number. But I was a bit surprised to see that noone else was
> using the same method as I was.
I wasn't. It's *damn* clever. I briefly considered the grep-based
approach of your earlier attempts but it looked so unpromising I
quickly gave up. Hmph. What I want to know is, how the hell did you
manage to pick what was essentially the winning technique from the
word go? :-) It took me several days just to get sort<>. It's a bit
like chess really. The best players instinctively know which lines to
analyse and which to reject.
> I only wonder what the post mortem gamers will manage to do now.
It's beyond me.
