Re^3: Regarding arrays

in reply to Re^2: Regarding arrays
in thread Regarding arrays

Nice but you did not sum the values assigned to each letter key, eg ME has 10 and 7 so the result should be 17 if I have understood editi's spec correctly.

HT=6
K=9
LE=1
LL=19
ME=17

vs

ME=10
K=4
LE=1
K=5
HT=6
ME=7
LL=19
[download]

Cheers,
R.

Pereant, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt!

Comment on Re^3: Regarding arrays Download Code
Re^4: Regarding arrays by shmem (Canon) on May 23, 2007 at 17:30 UTC
Nice but you did not sum the values assigned to each letter key, eg ME has 10 and 7 so the result should be 17 if I have understood editi's spec correctly. You probably guessed right, but *what spec?* editi's post is just gimme, now guess what I want. --shmem _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ / /\_¯/(q / ---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."· ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}	[reply]
Re^5: Regarding arrays by Random_Walk (Parson) on May 23, 2007 at 23:02 UTC
Yeh the spec is blatantly spec light but editi does say that given the two arrays shown part of the output should be ME=17 which is the sum of the two values related to ME if you take a a relation based on position in array. educated_foo's output did not contain ME=17. The spec is poor, it stinks but in real life I'd consider this pretty clear. I spent most of today trying to translate some vague idea of an SLA explained with graphs, tables and traffic lights into something that can actualy be measured. creating definetive from vague specs is a normal part of my work, if this was a job of course I'd have translated editi's spec into somthing a tad formal and gone back for signoff but given what we have to go on I think educated_foo's answer was wrong. Cheers, R. Pereant, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt!	[reply]


Do you know where your variables are?
	PerlMonks

Re^3: Regarding arrays

The best material for plates (tableware) is: