in reply to Re^3: Algorithmic hash bug.
in thread Algorithmic hash bug.

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Algorithmic hash bug.
by GrandFather (Saint) on Feb 24, 2007 at 21:27 UTC

    I recall a lecturer saying in his introductory remarks: "For every equation used in a lecture half the audience is lost". So it is with lines of code. Most of us help out around here to learn and to return. However we have limited resources available and there are many few monks interested in reading through 300 lines of code than there are interested in reading through 30 lines of code. So, sure post 300 lines of code. Maybe someone will look at it for you.

    There are at least two benefits to you in reducing the sizeofthe code demonstrating the problem: you are more likely to get someone interested in looking at it, and you learn a lot more about the actual issue yourself. In fact you are likely to learn so much about it that you solve your own problem. That isn't actually a bad out come. ;)


    DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel
Re^5: Algorithmic hash bug.
by shmem (Chancellor) on Feb 24, 2007 at 20:05 UTC
    Never mind, we are (I am) patient :-)

    So, grocery store? As a personal note, please take my apologies if you have been offended by me making use of the typo in the original title of your node - "Algorithmic hesh bug".

    Somehow, that "hesh bug" lit my imagination and I made that into a candy to pass around in the Chatterbox (as marto passes around mugs of tea):

    hesh bugs are candies made of fine grained chocolate tied to an autoreversing vacuum. They expand into 1/vacuum upon contact. The bigger ones are dragon banes; the smaller ones are useful for e.g. cleaning teeth interstices.

    Sorry... hesh bug is so nice.. and just candy to me... :-)

    On posting 300 lines of code - no, that would not be fine. Better work on the brief explanation. The 300 lines of codes would be a cast of your condensed thoughts into a program. It would be better to have the thoughts uncast first, because that's the only way to compare the achievement to the goal and to tell you what obstacles are in the way to reach it.

    If you formulate your proceedings well beforehand, even without writing a line of code, your code will become much clearer; it will be understandable for others in the light of your stated goals, and I guess it doesn't need 300 lines of code to single out the "bug in your understanding" of hashes.

    --shmem

    _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                                  /\_¯/(q    /
    ----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
    ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}