On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:06:38AM -0700, Abigail wrote:
> We all remember our fundamental algorithms, don't we?
Not really, which is why it's good to have you remind us :-)
Now that you mention it, though,
> sub heapify () {
> my ($code, $index, $array, $bound) = @_;
> {
> m
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 08:38:13AM +0200, Abigail wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 12:13:45AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > (The original works, by chance.)
>
> Nah, not by chance. It works fine. It's just that the top element of
> the heap only has one child - but that
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:27:50AM +0300, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> () is an empty list, and the fact that an empty list
> constant evaluates to undef in *scalar* context is an explicit feature
> of constant.pm.
It doesn't. "()" isn't an empty list in scalar context. "A list in
scalar context" is
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:52:11AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy/Marillion' Pinyan wrote:
> And the difference is? An array isn't the same as a list, but assigning
> to an array is the same as assigning to a list.
Consider the difference between
@a = (1, 2);
and
($a[0], $a[1], $a[2]) = (1, 2)
A
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:20:50PM -0500, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> while ($str =~ m{ ([^\0]{$len,}) (?= [^\0]* \0 [^\0]*? \1 ) }xg) {
Thanks to the comma, ^
> $len = length($match = $1) + 1;
> }
this is O(N^3) in the case of no common substring:
- 1 factor for the posit
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:37:15AM -0500, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> Except that you are forced to find a 2-character match, which means you
> end up skipping a POTENTIAL 3-character-or-more match.
Due to the while loop, we will keep looking for longer matches.
Otherwise, your version would hav
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 07:27:03AM -0600, Tim Ayers wrote:
> No offense, but did you try it without the comma?
Gosh, now we're getting picky! This is "fun with perl", not
"working code with perl"!
> It doesn't work. If
> you get a 2-character match, the regex engine gains a new starting
> point
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:45:18AM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
> Going a bit further afield, I also started thinking about the general
> nature of printf. I've been using this basic syntax since 1970 (in
> the form of Fortran's FORMAT statements :-), so I'm pretty comfortable
> with it. OTOH, I don
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 10:16:05PM +, Jonathan E. Paton wrote:
> A lazy sort can be done in n time, easily:
>
> @highest;
> foreach element {
>if (element > lowest in @highest) {
^^
You haven't kept @highest sorted, so there is another factor of n.
>
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 11:11:00PM +, Jonathan E. Paton wrote:
> > > A lazy sort can be done in n time, easily:
> > >
> > > @highest;
> > > foreach element {
> > >if (element > lowest in @highest) {
> >^^
> > You haven't kept @highest sorted, so there i
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:37:08PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> sub fy2 {
>my($deck,$i,$j,$t) = $_[0];
>$i = @$deck || return;
>while(1) {
> $j = int rand($i-- || return);
This causes a useless iteration when $i == 1. I'm guessing you know
this, but it still helped your benchma
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:12:18PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It it a requirement of the Fisher-Yates shuffle that the "randomizing
> window" grow smaller through each iteration? Why not just do:
>
> sub shuffle {
> my $deck = shift;
> my $size = @$deck;
> my ($j, $t);
> for (@$dec
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:51:06AM -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
> Perl today: A semicolon is required after every statement, except before a
> closing curly or end of file.
> Perl 6: A semicolon is also required after every block, except when the
> closing curly is on a line of its own, or it prec
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stephen Turner wrote:
> is _much_ worse for golf than (?=PATTERN) !
Larry has obvious lost touch with his constituency. :-)
Andrew
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:27:00PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> I'd say it was undefined behaviour.
Modification of a read-only value attempted?
Andrew
I like to use symbolic constants. Wha can remember what all those
1, 0, undef, and ''s mean anyway? So I start off all my programs
with
use constant FALSE => !TRUE;
use constant TRUE => !FALSE;
Andrew
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 06:43:26PM +0200, Gaal Yahas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:09:29AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > use constant FALSE => !TRUE;
> > use constant TRUE => !FALSE;
>
> I start off all my programs with use strict :-)
Wimp. :-)
>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 03:06:41PM -0800, Zhuang Li wrote:
> Hi, given an array: @a = ('E1', 'E2', ..., 'En');
>
> Is there an easy way, hopefully one liner, to do the following without a
> loop? If not, will Perl support this in Perl 6?
>
> $hash->{E1}->{E2}->...->{En} = 1;
If you're feeling f
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:30:49AM +0200, Alexandre Jousset wrote:
> Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>
> > If you're feeling functional,
> >
> > ${fold_left(sub { \${$_[0]}->{$_[1]} }, \$hash, @a)} = 1;
> >
> > To get the value back out:
> >
> >
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 06:42:41PM +0200, Alexandre Jousset wrote:
> Alexandre Jousset wrote:
> >Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> >
> >>>>(You should be able to write the first one as
> >>>>
> >>>> ${fold_left { \${$_[0]}->{$_[1]} } \$has
20 matches
Mail list logo
