Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I'm still a bit in golf mode, but here's a possibility:
    $uniq_chars = keys %{{ split /()/, $string }};
    • Odd number of elements in anonymous hash at uniq.pl line 5.

      It doesn't like having an odd number of characters in the string length. Looks like the basis for what I was after, so some tweaking might be in order.

      Thanks for the suggestion.

      • Oops, I forgot to turn on warnings when I ran the one-liner (told you I was in golf mode!). Actually it gives the warning even if the string has an even number of characters. Here's a variation:
        $uniq_chars = keys %{{ $string =~ /(.)()/gs }};
        • I thought I'd do a bit of benchmarking and was rather surprised at the results.

          This was the code:

          #!/usr/bin/perl -w
          use strict;

          use Benchmark qw(:all);

          my $string = "ABCDEEsdasdasdfsadfwewasdaSD";

          cmpthese(100000, {
              'foreach' => \&do_foreach,
              'map' => \&do_map,
              'split' => \&do_split,
          });

          sub do_foreach {
              my %hash;
              foreach ( split //, $string ) { $hash{$_}=1; }
              my $uniq_chars = keys %hash;
          }

          sub do_map {
           

  • I'm probably being exceptionally silly, but why would predictions based on previous draws give you better results than random numbers?
    • Theoretically they shouldn't, but if there is a set of numbers or even a sequence of numbers that persistantly appear in draws, then using them seems to have a better chance of winning small prizes.

      In all the test runs I've done so far there has only one prediction that has made a bonus+5 win, and that was from the predictions based on previous draws.

      It doesn't prove anything and I only wrote it to wile away the hours on a Sunday. But it did prove useful for learning about the sorting and other alogrith

    • It doesn't. The only thing you can maximize by analyzing previous drawings is your possible win (by choosing numbers which are not frequently played by your fellow players).
      • ...waaaait, wouldn't that only be true if there were no pattern in the numbers?
        --

        ------------------------------
        You are what you think.
        • Patterns - Yes... but not in the numbers that are drawn but in the numbers which are chosen by other players.
          • ...so even if there's a pattern in the numbers being drawn, it's irrelevant to trying to win more? Why wouldn't finding that pattern produce increased winnings?

            This can't be the Monty Hall problem...what's the deal?

            --

            ------------------------------
            You are what you think.