| ??? 05/27/07 16:08 Read: times |
#139900 - Nice variation! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan said:
The first one is relatively straighforward, too; but you've built in a catch or two, didn't you. I did. Just a little. (c: Let me make a variation of that one (the same speed and spares a couple of bytes). Good one! The other one I admit gave me some hard time to understand... But it's definitively nice! Well, I must admit that I didn't invent either one of those algorithms. (Google is my friend.) I just translated them into 8051 ASM. I did "invent" the shortest one of all (which I haven't shown yet). But, as I said, it is 100% straightforward and not very interesting except for its brevity. -- Russ |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| weekend-end quiz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How about this? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| @#$%^& | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two equivalent functions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OK, I admit, 2:1 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nice variation! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| shortest? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Eleven bytes. No tricks. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The wayward path followed... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Deterministic Way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yet another tweak | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OMG.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
You are forgiven | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| commented | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nastiness density increased | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That looks like my assembly code. | 01/01/70 00:00 |