3 ms·

It's actually more lines than it appears since the author has concatenated lines with a semi-colon: my $size=8;my @cols=(0..$size-1); my $row=@_;next if

by laumars 11y ago

It's actually more lines than it appears since the author has concatenated lines with a semi-colon: my $size=8;my @cols=(0..$size-1); my $row=@_;next if grep ($_ == $col-$row--, @_); my $row=@_;next if grep ($_ == $col+$row--, @_); Strictly speaking that's 6 lines of code concatenated into 3. But as you said, it would be relatively easy to golf that down and still keep the program logic.

tyingq 11y ago
Perl being big on "more than one way to do things...", semicolons are easy to discard: sub nextq { my $sz=8; (print("@_\n"),return) if @_ == $sz; foreach my $col(0..$sz-1) { my $row; if (grep($_==$col,@_)) {next} else {$row=@_} if (grep($_==$col-$row--,@_)) {next} else {$row=@_} if (grep($_==$col+$row--,@_)) {next} else {$row=@_} nextq(@_,$col); } } nextq();
- laumars 11y ago
  I still feel that's cheating as you're just replacing the semi-colon with braced blocks; effectively it's still being parsed as multiple lines. I was thinking more along the lines of using the one line conditional: condition ? first_expression : second_expression; eg sub nextq { (print( "@_\n" ),return) if @_ == (my $size = 8); foreach my $col(0..$size-1) { my ($row, $next); grep ($_ == $col, @_) ? $next=1 : $row=@_; grep ($_ == $col-$row--, @_) ? $next=1 : $row=@_; grep ($_ == $col+$row--, @_) ? $next=1 : $row=@_; nextq(@_,$col) unless $next; } } nextq(); The `$next` ugliness is due to not being allowed to use the `next` inside a one line conditional. There's probably cleaner ways of doing the above though. But that was only a quick hack.
  - shasta 11y ago
    It's almost as if "number of lines" isn't particularly meaningful.
    - laumars 11y ago
      I agree but we've already done that argument to death (eg the Plan 9 vs GNU debates about code "complexity") This sort of line counting is just for fun.
  - tyingq 11y ago
    Smaller without being obfuscated: sub nextq { my $sz=8; (print("@_\n"),return) if @_ == $sz; o: foreach my $col(0..$sz-1) { my($u,$d)=(scalar(@_),scalar(@_)); for (@_) {next o if($_==$col or $_==$col-$u-- or $_==$col+$d--)} nextq(@_,$col); } } nextq();
    - laumars 11y ago
      Personally I'd consider 1 and 2 character variable names as a form of obfuscation. eg what's the point having a "pseudo-constant" for size if it's named in such a way that isn't immediately obvious that it refers to the size. Nice code though.

by laumars 11y ago

tyingq 11y ago

Perl being big on "more than one way to do things...", semicolons are easy to discard: sub nextq { my $sz=8; (print("@_\n"),return) if @_ == $sz; foreach my $col(0..$sz-1) { my $row; if (grep($_==$col,@_)) {next} else {$row=@_} if (grep($_==$col-$row--,@_)) {next} else {$row=@_} if (grep($_==$col+$row--,@_)) {next} else {$row=@_} nextq(@_,$col); } } nextq();

laumars 11y ago
I still feel that's cheating as you're just replacing the semi-colon with braced blocks; effectively it's still being parsed as multiple lines. I was thinking more along the lines of using the one line conditional: condition ? first_expression : second_expression; eg sub nextq { (print( "@_\n" ),return) if @_ == (my $size = 8); foreach my $col(0..$size-1) { my ($row, $next); grep ($_ == $col, @_) ? $next=1 : $row=@_; grep ($_ == $col-$row--, @_) ? $next=1 : $row=@_; grep ($_ == $col+$row--, @_) ? $next=1 : $row=@_; nextq(@_,$col) unless $next; } } nextq(); The `$next` ugliness is due to not being allowed to use the `next` inside a one line conditional. There's probably cleaner ways of doing the above though. But that was only a quick hack.
- shasta 11y ago
  It's almost as if "number of lines" isn't particularly meaningful.
  - laumars 11y ago
    I agree but we've already done that argument to death (eg the Plan 9 vs GNU debates about code "complexity") This sort of line counting is just for fun.
- tyingq 11y ago
  Smaller without being obfuscated: sub nextq { my $sz=8; (print("@_\n"),return) if @_ == $sz; o: foreach my $col(0..$sz-1) { my($u,$d)=(scalar(@_),scalar(@_)); for (@_) {next o if($_==$col or $_==$col-$u-- or $_==$col+$d--)} nextq(@_,$col); } } nextq();
  - laumars 11y ago
    Personally I'd consider 1 and 2 character variable names as a form of obfuscation. eg what's the point having a "pseudo-constant" for size if it's named in such a way that isn't immediately obvious that it refers to the size. Nice code though.