On Dec 31, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Wilson Bilkovich wrote:

> On 12/31/05, Stephen Waits <steve / waits.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Peter Burns wrote:
>>
>>> I think I've improved upon this test code a bit.  I found this  
>>> one to
>>> be a bit brittle, as it will fail solutions with unanticipated paths
>>> of the same or smaller length.  I lost some of the metadata in the
>>> switch, as Steve has the different solutions ordered by type (i.e.
>>> primes, powers of two, etc).
>>
>> Looks great Peter.  I posted a note about and link to your improved
>> version on my [original post][1].
>>
>>> I'm just pounding away at this test case code because my  
>>> mathematician
>>> buddy is busy at the moment.  This is quite the nontrivial  
>>> problem...
>>
>> Exactly why I created my own test cases.  :)
>>
>> --Steve
>>
>> [1]: http://swaits.com/articles/2005/12/31/ruby-quiz-60-test-cases
>>
>
> I'd just like to chime in to say that this quiz is killing me.  The
> difference between 'code to solve the problem' and 'code that finishes
> running, you know, sometime today' is big.

Don't worry, you're not alone.  :)

I'm very anxious to see the code that the rest of you have come up  
with.  It's been a long time since my brain worked over a problem  
like this.  :)

~ ryan ~