3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt's almost as if "number of lines" isn't particularly meaningful.
- laumars 11y agoI 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 agoSmaller 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 agoPersonally 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.