Re (tilly) 1: Closest-value-in-list Golf!

[tilly]

in reply to Closest-value-in-list Golf!

First of all I don't think that strict is a very useful restriction in golf. For instance a useful trick is to use punctuation variables like $, because Perl parses $,for differently than $_for. But using $, is strict-compliant in letter even though it definitely is not in spirit!

That said the natural approach at 46 letters happens to be strict-compliant:

sub g{
(sort{abs($a-$_[1])<=>abs$b-$_[1]}@{$_[0]})[0]
}

[larryk]

how come you use ( ) on one abs but not the other? :-)

sub g {(sort{abs$a-$_[1]<=>abs$b-$_[1]}@{$_[0]})[0]} # 44 chars

Update:
pop and no ref...

sub g {$n=pop;(sort{abs$a-$n<=>abs$b-$n}@_)[0]} # 39 chars

fantastic - that's exactly half my original

"Argument is futile - you will be ignorralated!"

[tilly]

For future reference, I found your spec unclear. In the end I settled on "2 parameters" as being the clearest statement. But it would help in the future if you gave sample test code using the function. Then there can be no doubt.

However if I am allowed to rearrange the arguments, I find it more natural that any special arguments should come first in the list. Giving a 38 character solution:

sub g {
(sort{abs$a-$_[0]<=>abs$b-$_[0]}@_)[1]
}

[larryk]

Apologies for my ambiguous description. Please take a look at the update I have made and tell me if I make any more sense.

ps. 38 chars - good job!

"Argument is futile - you will be ignorralated!"

[suaveant]

Update my bad... sorry, missed the or listref bit of golf, my response here was useless
                - Ant