From: Piergiuliano Bossi <p_bossi_AGAINST_SPAM@...>
Date: 2004-03-04T01:09:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby won, of course

Robert Klemme wrote:
> "Piergiuliano Bossi" <p_bossi_AGAINST_SPAM@tiscali.it> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:c24rte$da0$1@lacerta.tiscalinet.it...
> 
>>Result: ruby won with the following version
>>
>>**********************CUT HERE**********************
>>def combine(*results) not results.flatten().include? false end
>>def check (*all) combine all.collect{|t|c =caller-[caller.last]
>>   c.collect!{|l|(l.include? "rut.rb")? nil : l.sub(/.*in/, '')}
>>   puts (eval t)?"pass ...#{c} #{t}":"FAIL ...#{c} #{t}";eval t} end
>>**********************CUT HERE**********************
> 
> 
> IMHO Ruby can do better (also removing some duplicate evaluation):
> 
> def check (*all) c=caller[0...-1].map{|l|l.include?("rut.rb")? nil :
> l.sub(/.*in/, '')}.compact
>    all.collect{|t|res=eval t; puts "#{res ?"pass":"FAIL"} ...#{c}
> #{t}";res}.all? end
> 
> irb(main):078:0> check( "5+3", "4>3" )
> pass ...g'g' 5+3
> pass ...g'g' 4>3
> => true
> irb(main):079:0> check( "5+3", "4>3", "4<3" )
> pass ...g'g' 5+3
> pass ...g'g' 4>3
> FAIL ...g'g' 4<3
> => false
> 
> Or did I miss something?
> 

You didn't miss anything. Infact in my version (rubytalk:93734) I have 
done a  single evaluation just like what you did. I also prefer my 
version of caller filtering because it looks much more understandable to me.

I have included it here once again just for your own convenience.

**********************CUT HERE**********************
def check(*tests)
      stack = caller.map {|m| m[/\w*(?=')/]}.compact.reverse.join " "
      tests.inject(true) {|ret, t| puts "#{(v=eval(t)) ? 'pass' : 'FAIL'}
..... (#{stack}) #{t.strip}"; ret && v}
end
**********************CUT HERE**********************

What do you think about it?

Thanks for your feedback.
Ciao, Giuliano


-- 
If you want to send me an email in the address you have to write 'p', 
then a dot, followed by 'bossi' at 'quinary', another dot and 'com' at last