Tim Hochberg wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> However, it still feels like there's room for improvement. I have a 123
>> byte solution based on a fairly repetitive 21 character string; if I
>> could compress the representation of the string, it could win.
>
> Apparently there was as someone put out a 119 byte solution. I can't get
> to Roberto's code at present (perhaps he's suffering a bandwidth
> crisis?), but it seems that my 120 character solution is different. It
> sounds like he encoded his as a row at a time and did two loops one for
> each character and one for each row. I encoded the data per character
> and did three loops one per column, one per character and one per row.
> I'm sure that's not clear, so here's the code:
>
> g=''.join;seven_seg=lambda i:g(
> g(' _|x|'[ord("~$]m'k{d\x7fo"[int(n)])>>s&j]
> for n in i for j in(2,1,4))+'\n'for s in(6,0,3))
>
> I've replaced the unprintable characters and added some preemptive
> linebreaks so that hopefully this won't get too munged. It's all clear
> now, right? Two hints: 6,0,3->row, 2,1,4->column and the 6 and 1 have to
> be where they are to exploit the property that the top row only ever has
> a center character in it. That way things can be encoded in 7-bits and
> fit in a character string that Python likes. The order of the other loop
> indices is mostly accidental but not all permutations may work.
>
> I'm off to try to figure out how to do it the other way now, before the
> code gets revealed.
>
>
> -tim
> -tim
>
>
Mine was practically identical, but with another permutation of the loop
variables:
seven_seg=lambda n,s="".join:s(
s(" _| |"[ord('w\x12][:koR\x7f{'[int(i)])>>r&j]
for i in n for j in(4,1,2))+"\n"for r in(6,3,0))
More evidence that 'there is one obvious way to do it' ;-)
Still curious about 119, though
Michael
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
