Perl Weekly Challenge 206 with List::Util

LanX has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I stumbled over some blog posts choosing brute-forc'ish algos to solve the perl-weekly-challenge-206.

Here my take on it ... (I hid the "spoilers")

I hope my approaches are clever solutions, please correct me otherwise.

But I'm not too fond of my approach with List::Util::reduce() for task1. It's a hack to process successive pairs instead of even pairs.( 1-2 than 2-3 vs 3-4 )

Is there a more elegant way to do it with a function from List::Util ?

BTW: Generating the tests from the POD is nice too. :)

--- Task 1 ok 1 - ("00:00", "23:55", "20:00") -> 5 ok 2 - ("01:01", "00:50", "00:57") -> 4 ok 3 - ("10:10", "09:30", "09:00", "09:55") -> 15 --- Task 2 ok 4 - (1,2,3,4) -> 4 ok 5 - (0,2,1,3) -> 2 1..5
[download]

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Perl Weekly Challenge 206 with List::Util Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Perl Weekly Challenge 206 with List::Util by Anonymous Monk on Mar 17, 2023 at 18:56 UTC
Not from List::Util, and elegance in the eye of etc., but ... <Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Perl Weekly Challenge 206 -- oneliner by Discipulus (Canon) on Mar 18, 2023 at 09:55 UTC
Just for fun and with many doubts on my own working solution, a nice oneliner for the first challange on time differences `perl -le "@v=sort{push@r,abs$a-$b;$a-$b}map{($h,$m)=split':',$_;$M=60* +$h+$m;($M,$M+1440,$M+2880)}@ARGV;print+(sort{$a<=>$b}@r)[0]" @ARGV = 00:00 23:55 20:00 => 5 @ARGV = 01:01 00:50 00:57 => 4 @ARGV = 10:10 09:30 09:00 09:55 => 15` [download] L* There are no rules, there are no thumbs.. Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Perl Weekly Challenge 206 -- oneliner by Discipulus (Canon) on Mar 20, 2023 at 08:56 UTC
..as always for my own fun, the second task is easy using a hash with expected values as keys and values incremented for expected args `$ARGV[0]..$ARGV[-1]` and for actual args `@ARGV` so a key with a value of 1 is a missing number and a key with a value of 3 is a duplicate. If nothing of this happens return -1 `perl -E "map{$h{$_}++}$ARGV[0]..$ARGV[-1],@ARGV;map{$h{$_}==3?$r.=' Du +plicate is '.$_:$h{$_}==1?$r.=' Missing is '.$_:''}keys%h;say $r\|\|-1"` [download] L* UPDATE ..oops! yes LanX is right I jumped to 208, sorry. There are no rules, there are no thumbs.. Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Perl Weekly Challenge 206 -- oneliner by LanX (Saint) on Mar 20, 2023 at 11:13 UTC
that's an answer to challenge 206 task 2 ? I provided a test-suite in my OP, not sure how best to generalize it to fit for one-liner too. (probably by shelling out?) update did you skip to 208? Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re: Perl Weekly Challenge 206 with List::Util by hv (Prior) on Mar 17, 2023 at 17:57 UTC
~~For the second task, it looks to me like you want to choose ...~~ ~~<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>~~ Edited: I misread the task.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Perl Weekly Challenge 206 with List::Util by LanX (Saint) on Mar 17, 2023 at 18:06 UTC
Are you saying descending is better than ascending? 🤷🏻‍♂️ The task guaranties even numbered lists, and it doesn't matter in which direction I sum up. Tho I could have avoided `sum map ... pairs` with a for loop and a `$sum += $_ if ++$i % 2` inside, hence avoiding the dependency on List::Util Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Perl Weekly Challenge 206 with List::Util by hv (Prior) on Mar 17, 2023 at 19:42 UTC
My apologies, I misread the question: somehow I got it into my head that we wanted the sum of at most two numbers.	[reply]

update