in reply to Re: Re: Re: (Golf) Multiply polynomials
in thread (Golf) Multiply polynomials

D'oh, I see where I was going wrong, I was reading it as [3,2] being 3x+2. Now I see ability to whack zeros with no problem :D

However, to nitpick, the 75 char solution (update above), isn't strict; you need to add 12 characters to strict-ify it. (my@m, for my $i, for my $p, my$j ), so to compare with the other solutions, at least mine being all strict, you're at 87.

update-fixed bad square brackets.

Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tilly) 5: (Golf) Multiply polynomials
by tilly (Archbishop) on May 08, 2001 at 18:29 UTC
    Nitpicking some more, if you want strict I can give you 84 characters: 
    sub p{
my@m=1;for my$p(@_){my@a;for my$i(0..@m){my$j;$a[$i+$j++]+=$_*$m[$i]fo
+r@$p}@m=@a}\@m
}

    [download]
    And note that I handle 0 or more polynomials correctly. (The empty product in math is "1".)
[reply]
[d/l]
      This must be under 5.6 or the like; "for my$p" and "for my$i" lead to interpreter problems under 5.005_02 (Win32). Bug or feature change?
      Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
[reply]
        Um, bug. I was too glib.

        But that makes getting a strict version with a count of 84 a point of honour, right? :-) 

        sub p{
my@m=1;for my $p(@_){my@a;map{my$j=my$i=$_;$a[$j++]+=$_*$m[$i]for@$p}0
+..@m;@m=@a}\@m
}

        [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations