python coding contest
ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com
Tue Dec 27 08:58:52 CET 2005
"Scott David Daniels" <scott.daniels at acm.org> wrote in message
news:43b0b977 at nntp0.pdx.net...
> Remi Villatel wrote:
> > Tim Hochberg wrote:
> >>> I am currently at 39 bytes following the requirements and the
> >>> principle given above (my module passes the test). Anyone able to
> >>> beat that?
> >> Wow! It'll be interesting to see how to do that. The obvious way gives
> >> 53 bytes. Hmmm, I'll have to see what can be done...
> > 39 bytes... 53 bytes... It gives me the impression to follow a jet plane
> > with a bike with my 179 bytes!
> > There isn't a single superfluous byte. My code is so compressed that the
> > syntactic colorizer can't cope any more.
> > I definitively need a new algorythm. <g>
> And I am sadly stuck at 169. Not even spitting distance from 149 (which
> sounds like a non-cheat version).
> --Scott David Daniels
> scott.daniels at acm.org
Well *I'm* certainly looking forward to learning some new tricks! My
(non-cheat) version is a comparatively-portly 245, and no alternatives are
popping into my head at the moment!
More information about the Python-list