On Nov 3, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:05:42 -0700, "Levi Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
Lisp is designed for building large, complex programs, not one-line
throwaway scripts, so comparing its verbosity to perl is kind of
silly.
Hmm, I could substitute Java for Lisp there and be just as
accurate. :)
Indeed you could. I imagine that if asked to program it in the style
they use for their for-work perl programming, the size of a Java,
Lisp, and Perl implementation of the core logic of this problem would
be far closer than when attempting to write the shortest possible
program in each of the languages.
But, just to be perverse, I did translate my Lisp program into a
single line:
(loop(if(let*((l(let((s(read-line)))(loop for i = 0 then(1+ j)as j =
(position #\Space s :start i)collect(subseq s i j)while j)))(n(length
l)))(catch 'f(reduce(lambda(x y)(let((d(abs(-(parse-integer x)(parse-
integer y)))))(unless(and(> d 0)(< d n))(throw 'f nil))y))l)t))
(format t "match~%")(format t "not a match~%")))
It's essentially the same logic, and could possibly be compressed
further, but I really don't feel like doing that.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
