From: Robert Dober Date: 2008-03-16T00:58:10+09:00 Subject: Re: [RRR] Robert's Ruby Riddle: Methodical Digits On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Sebastian Hungerecker wrote: > Robert Dober wrote: > > Take the hint, the solution is a short one, much less than the 132 > > characters of the second solution. > > > > But maybe there are even more solutions than these two. > > I don't know whether that's the solution you wanted, but it's short anyway: > > > > The following whitespace is intentional of course > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ruby rrr02.rb '?*.to_s(base)' '?*.to_s' > Or if the base hadn't been set to two (or there at all): > ruby rrr02.rb '?*.to_s(?c-?a)' '?*.to_s' > Did not think of this, very clever, you can really laugh at me, look what I did: ruby rrr02.rb '"/".succ.succ + "/".succ + "/".succ.succ + "/".succ + "/".succ.succ + "/".succ' '"/".succ.succ.succ.succ.succ + "/".succ.succ.succ' However what I wanted to show is the following... SPOILER AHEAD: ruby rrr002.rb super 'super()' underlining the different semantics of super and super(). Cheers Robert But you are aware that this is not the optimal solution, right? The solution I was thinking about is the following: > -- > Jabber: sepp2k@jabber.org > ICQ: 205544826 > > -- http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/ --- Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein