>> I would love to see a similar post mortem analysis here >> of the the top N solutions. I liked the way Lars >> classified each of the top 20 solutions into categories. >> What are the categories here? I suppose, at least: >> "operator overload", "top down parser (Recursive Descent)", >> "bottom up parser", "operator stack", "recursive regex".
En op 09 september 2002 sprak (-ugene: > What is stopping you? I'm afraid I wouldn't recognize any of > these categories (except the overload one), so don't look at me. > Oh, and you forgot the B::Deparse one. I hope to do some sort of analysis of the leading solutions, both in terms of algorithm and performance; it might take me a while though, as I am not a computer science boffin. You might call it intellectual masterbation, but it would thrill me if one of our little golf tournaments produced a computer science algorithmic breakthrough of some sort, allowing CS students, for example, to learn all about the remarkably concise "Mad Dutch" algorithm for Infix to Postfix conversion. :) BTW, if anyone knows of a cool web site for Infix to Postfix (RPN) conversion algorithms, please let me know. If anyone has a working tpr05a solution using Parse::RecDescent or other CPAN module can you please post it to the list, as I am also interested in comparing that solution to the others. /-\ndrew
