in reply to Re^5: Removing Flanking "N"s in a DNA String
in thread Removing Flanking "N"s in a DNA String

What do you mean "the winner is reversed"? Sure, the names are reversed, but that's to be expected as you reversed the names in the test to prove a point.

Which I think, you didn't, as the test still favour the solution that uses two substitutions - just naming it one_sub doesn't change that.

Perl --((8:>*
  • Comment on Re^6: Removing Flanking "N"s in a DNA String

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Removing Flanking "N"s in a DNA String
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 07, 2005 at 16:56 UTC

    You're right. Dumb conclusion.

    I still stand by my benchmark though--until someone shows me what is wrong with it.

    By moving the test data generation outside of the test, and testing each method twice in reversed order, I believe that I have accounted for the Benchmark.PM "first case" bias, and am more accurately comparing the two methods than any of the other benchmarks posted.

    Can you dubunk that claim?

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom