Brainbench perl test?
dave at dave.org.uk
Tue Sep 4 15:43:06 BST 2012
Quoting Jasper <jaspermccrea at gmail.com>:
> On 4 September 2012 14:38, Will Crawford <billcrawford1970 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 September 2012 14:27, Jasper <jaspermccrea at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4 September 2012 14:12, Piers Cawley
>>> <pdcawley-london.0dd185 at bofh.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Or, in an attempt to really drive it home:
>>>> blarg(n) is equal to blarg( n - 1 ) * 2 + blarg( n - 2 )
>>>> There you go. Not the Fibonacci sequence, but still a recursive
>>>> definition, trivially implementable with a recursive condition given a
>>>> couple more bits of knowledge (the values of blarg(0) and blarg(1)).
>>> Aha! A couple more bits of knowledge. Now my machine can stop dying
>>> when I run my program.
>>> The question as originally described is a starting point to deciding
>>> if someone can think logically, but it does not fully describe the
>> The point most of us are trying to make is that a programmer who
>> doesn't *ask* you for those "bits of knowledge" hasn't understood the
>> question sufficiently :)
> I think that that is probably what most of us are thinking, but the
> wording that I quoted in my previous post made me wonder.
Well, when I said it was completely specified, I obviously meant that
it was specified to about the level that you could expect in the real
More information about the london.pm