IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Theory and Practice of Programming Forum / Okay...so your 'cheat' is the method
Post #128,884
by Simon_Jester
12/4/03 11:44:55 AM
Reply
New Okay...so your 'cheat' is the method
Rather than walk through our collection, we apply to each element of the collection at one time.

I still would use my 2nd way, making the collection a set of objects, each object knowing whether or not to increment it's counter when presented with a random number X. (Each object would have an upper/lower bound and test for them).

Add a method to pull out the counter out of each object afterwards and you're done.
Post #128,891
by Arkadiy
Picture of Arkadiy
12/4/03 11:59:42 AM
Reply
New see my answer to Ben below...
--

The rich, as usual, are employing the elected.
-- [link|http://unfit2print.blogspot.com/|http://unfit2print.blogspot.com/]
     Smalltalk question - (Arkadiy) - (19) - Dec. 1, 2003, 06:06:29 AM EST
         What's the unsolved part? -NT - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Dec. 1, 2003, 02:42:36 PM EST
             The original problem - (Arkadiy) - Dec. 1, 2003, 03:38:19 PM EST
         Why not solve it like you would in any language? - (ben_tilly) - (16) - Dec. 3, 2003, 07:18:29 PM EST
             That is the problem I solved - (Arkadiy) - (15) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:22:59 AM EST
                 2 ways - (Simon_Jester) - (11) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:35:42 AM EST
                     Re: 2 ways - (Arkadiy) - (10) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:37:43 AM EST
                         The iterator doesn't change the algorithm (with assumption) - (Simon_Jester) - (3) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:47:03 AM EST
                             Smalltalk iterators are different - (Arkadiy) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2003, 10:50:10 AM EST
                                 Okay...so your 'cheat' is the method - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2003, 11:44:55 AM EST
                                     see my answer to Ben below... -NT - (Arkadiy) - Dec. 4, 2003, 11:59:42 AM EST
                         Some iterators do provide indexes - (tuberculosis) - (5) - Dec. 5, 2003, 12:48:07 PM EST
                             Yay! - (Arkadiy) - Dec. 8, 2003, 10:56:26 AM EST
                             Why worry about that factor of 2? - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Dec. 8, 2003, 07:24:30 PM EST
                                 Habit, I suppose - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2003, 01:29:41 PM EST
                                     It isn't just you though - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Dec. 11, 2003, 01:06:39 AM EST
                                         I know what you mean - (tuberculosis) - Dec. 11, 2003, 10:53:11 AM EST
                 Here is my second strategy in Ruby - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2003, 09:51:44 AM EST
                     I realized that introducing a bucket class makes it easy - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2003, 10:52:59 AM EST
                         Elegance is in the eye of the beholder - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 4, 2003, 02:40:45 PM EST

He's at the sack of hair level...and sinking rapidly.
128 ms