Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andrew Durdin wrote: >> On 12/28/05, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>I just found a 125 character solution. It's actually faster and more >>>readable than the 133 character solution (though it's still obscure.) >> Having spent a good deal of time and effort, and not getting below >> 144 >> characters, I am now very eager to see how these shorter versions >> work, particularly the 6 120-character solutions. I also expect that >> someone (I'll certainly give it a try) will produce a yet shorter >> version after the contest closes, based on the knowledge from the >> winning solutions. > > Roberto Alsina fully documented his 120 byte solution here: > > http://www.pycs.net/lateral/weblog/2005/12/29.html#P333 > > My 120 byte solution is equivalent. Many others probably did the same > thing. Python's philosophy of one way to do it seems to be leading us > all down the same road.
Here's a different way: it generates the output column-wise, then uses zip to assemble line-wise. The additional loop around zip's result probably kills it, for easier redability it's 163 bytes, but a few bytes could easily be spared. Thomas X=' _ _ _ | _| _ |_|_ ' Y=0x23018F406A3530EC273F008 j="".join seven_seg=lambda n:j(j(c)+"\n"for c in zip(*[X[Y>>m+int(d)*9&7::8]for d in n for m in(6,3,0)])) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
