in reply to Re: Challenge: Dumping trees.
in thread Challenge: Dumping trees.
Upon further testing, the anomalies I noted in Re^2: Challenge: Dumping trees. were actually more prevalent and distracting than I first thought; and I failed in my attempts to cure them in your code.
I also finally succeeded in getting my attempt to work properly. In part, because of a couple of things I learnt from studying your code. Thank you.
Re^2: Challenge: Dumping trees.
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
|Re^3: Challenge: Dumping trees.|
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 15, 2012 at 17:14 UTC
I also finally succeeded
neat :) it really is much easier on the eyes
Upon further testing, the anomalies
Hmm, weird. Using your tree generatorAnd running
I was not able to reproduce the anomalies, I get
I was not able to reproduce the anomalies,
At that point, I manually made the simplest correction to the raw tree that (I thought) would make it valid:
and re-ran the dumper. As you can see, it still produces the identical, malformed dump:
So then I fed that corrected tree to my dumper:
At this point, I'm kicking the ball into your court to decide if it is worth pursuing further?
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
..But I did it!...At this point, I'm kicking the ball into your court to decide if it is worth pursuing further?
I see, thanks. Nope, definitely not worth pursuing Fudgy further.