From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-03-04T02:04:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby won, of course


"Piergiuliano Bossi" <p_bossi_AGAINST_SPAM@tiscali.it> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:c24vu6$jj0$1@lacerta.tiscalinet.it...
> Robert Klemme wrote:
> > "Piergiuliano Bossi" <p_bossi_AGAINST_SPAM@tiscali.it> schrieb im
> > Newsbeitrag news:c24rte$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?

- you're omitting the file info as far as I can see
- I'd move the v=eval(t) out of the string replacement, no need to have it
there.
+ #inject is even more performant since you omit the intermediate array of
results.

> Thanks for your feedback.

You're welcome!

    robert

> 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
>