Perl Weekly Challenge 206 with List::Util

[LanX]

Hi

I stumbled over some blog posts choosing brute-forc'ish algos to solve the perl-weekly-challenge-206.

Here my take on it ... (I hid the "spoilers")

I hope my approaches are clever solutions, please correct me otherwise.

But I'm not too fond of my approach with List::Util::reduce() for task1. It's a hack to process successive pairs instead of even pairs.( 1-2 than 2-3 vs 3-4 )

Is there a more elegant way to do it with a function from List::Util ?

BTW: Generating the tests from the POD is nice too. :)

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>

--- Task 1
ok 1 - ("00:00", "23:55", "20:00") -> 5
ok 2 - ("01:01", "00:50", "00:57") -> 4
ok 3 - ("10:10", "09:30", "09:00", "09:55") -> 15
--- Task 2
ok 4 - (1,2,3,4) -> 4
ok 5 - (0,2,1,3) -> 2
1..5

[Anonymous Monk]

Not from List::Util, and elegance in the eye of etc., but ...

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>

[Discipulus]

Just for fun and with many doubts on my own working solution, a nice oneliner for the first challange on time differences

perl -le "@v=sort{push@r,abs$a-$b;$a-$b}map{($h,$m)=split':',$_;$M=60*
+$h+$m;($M,$M+1440,$M+2880)}@ARGV;print+(sort{$a<=>$b}@r)[0]" 

@ARGV  =  00:00 23:55 20:00       =>  5
@ARGV  =  01:01 00:50 00:57       =>  4
@ARGV  =  10:10 09:30 09:00 09:55 => 15

L*

[Discipulus]

..as always for my own fun, the second task is easy using a hash with expected values as keys and values incremented for expected args $ARGV[0]..$ARGV[-1] and for actual args @ARGV so a key with a value of 1 is a missing number and a key with a value of 3 is a duplicate. If nothing of this happens return -1

perl -E "map{$h{$_}++}$ARGV[0]..$ARGV[-1],@ARGV;map{$h{$_}==3?$r.=' Du
+plicate is '.$_:$h{$_}==1?$r.=' Missing is '.$_:''}keys%h;say $r||-1"

L*

UPDATE ..oops! yes LanX is right I jumped to 208, sorry.

[LanX]

that's an answer to challenge 206 task 2 ?

I provided a test-suite in my OP, not sure how best to generalize it to fit for one-liner too. (probably by shelling out?)

update

did you skip to 208?

[hv]

For the second task, it looks to me like you want to choose ...

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>

Edited: I misread the task.

[LanX]

Are you saying descending is better than ascending? 🤷🏻‍♂️

The task guaranties even numbered lists, and it doesn't matter in which direction I sum up.

Tho I could have avoided sum map ... pairs with a for loop and a

• $sum += $_ if ++$i % 2

inside, hence avoiding the dependency on List::Util

[hv]

My apologies, I misread the question: somehow I got it into my head that we wanted the sum of at most two numbers.