>> I would love to see a similar post mortem analysis here
>> of the the top N solutions. I liked the way Lars
>> classified each of the top 20 solutions into categories.
>> What are the categories here? I suppose, at least:
>> "operator overload", "top down parser (Recursive Descent)",
>> "bottom up parser", "operator stack", "recursive regex".
En op 09 september 2002 sprak (-ugene:
> What is stopping you? I'm afraid I wouldn't recognize any of
> these categories (except the overload one), so don't look at me.
> Oh, and you forgot the B::Deparse one.
I hope to do some sort of analysis of the leading solutions,
both in terms of algorithm and performance; it might take me
a while though, as I am not a computer science boffin.
You might call it intellectual masterbation, but it would
thrill me if one of our little golf tournaments produced
a computer science algorithmic breakthrough of some sort,
allowing CS students, for example, to learn all about
the remarkably concise "Mad Dutch" algorithm for Infix
to Postfix conversion. :)
BTW, if anyone knows of a cool web site for Infix to
Postfix (RPN) conversion algorithms, please let me know.
If anyone has a working tpr05a solution using Parse::RecDescent
or other CPAN module can you please post it to the list, as I
am also interested in comparing that solution to the others.
/-\ndrew
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.