Re^4: Happy 2006

In my opinion, what would make the puzzle much more interesting would be to require single expression evaluation as your solution does but prohibit the use of eval $string.

You went to a school where you didn't have to program a calculator in your first year? I have a different opinion - writing an expression evaluator is boring, and it would be a reimplementation of functionality that perl already provides.

I like string eval. I wish every programming language had such functionality.

Perl --((8:>*

Comment on Re^4: Happy 2006

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Happy 2006
by Limbic~Region (Chancellor) on Jan 12, 2006 at 13:42 UTC

Perl Mouse

You went to a school where you didn't have to program a calculator in your first year?

No. Computers were pretty scarce in highschool and programming courses were non-existant.

...writing an expression evaluator is boring...

I am sure doing anything you already know how to do can be boring. If you have had the benefit of a college education in computer science and/or work as a programmer professionally, building a precedence parser this trivial is probably extremely boring.

I like string eval.

I agree and use it when it makes sense to. OTOH, when people post neat puzzles like this I take it as an opportunity to learn things I don't already know. Since it isn't production code - there is no harm in a little golf, obfu, or non-straight forward solutions. I often intentionally limit the tools I will allow myself to use - see Necessity is the mother of invention for an explanation of why.

Again, thanks for the puzzle.

Cheers - L~R

[reply]


go ahead... be a heretic
	PerlMonks