Re: Re: PGA Golf, Round 1 - Results

[petral]

Most rounds of golf on pm seem to consist of several answers, along with (re: x 1..4)'s and updates, converging on the maximal(er, minimal) solution (which is great!).  And this one was no different, as I pointed out in my posting. My scores would have been *much* better if I hadn't seen the comments of fellow monks -- and wrong!
That said, I still don't quite get it. Seems like everyone got hole 3 wrong, even if the official answer is also 'wrong' for certain not-explicitly-excluded edge conditions. (And most would have gotten 2 wrong.) (And... my fixed 5 was 32... and so on.)

Anyway, the point is that this is such a different venue, that it's really a different sort of thing. Not that the score posting isn't fun anyway... I guess i'll just bring up a reply window from the 'New Meditations' page (so I can try for the lowest wrongest scores prize).

  p

update: Did I really say 'venue'? blecchhh...   (but I suppose it goes with Golf)

[jmcnamara]

You are right. The idea behind this is a bit flawed. The iterative approach to Golf as used in PerlMonks goes against the idea of a tournament. Also, as chipmunk pointed out here:

We tried to make things a little easier at the actual tournament by providing a test scaffold for each hole, which the participants could use to test their code on sample input. Solving these holes is much harder without that.

My main desire was to post some well conceived and well specified Golf questions as an example of how it should be done. In retrospect I should have just posted one a day and avoided the score tabulation. I might continue like that. I'll run it past the CB later.


John.
--