On Jan 29, 3:53 pm, Thomas Hafner <tho... / hafner.NL.EU.ORG> wrote:
> "Trans" <transf... / gmail.com> wrote/schrieb <1170083352.801941.114... / p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > there are two considerations though: 1) your implementation retains
> > an additional array level for each initial possibility. is that
> > desired behavior?I don't yet understand what you mean. What's the ``initial
> possibility''? Do you want to say that I did waste CPU time for a
> needless loop execution? Which one?

no no, i mis-read the output. it was a mistake on my part. sorry.

> It was just my first attempt to implement it, and that somehow
> accidentally was the result. I'm not unlucky with it, at least it
> seems to work with just a few lines of code.

understood. actually i have a VERY fast implementation already that 
was written by Michael Neuman. to be so fast it's very ugly though :-) 
want to see?

but i mean to credit you with the name change, b/c you made me aware 
that my current name is a misnomer.

T.