------art_68925_1189583.1171303935842
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 2/12/07, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 12:00 AM, Phrogz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > I can't tell if I think the reverse/regexp/reverse technique you (and
> > many others) used for the first problem is more or less elegant than a
> > single regexp on the integer portion. I suspect that mine is faster at
> > runtime...but speed is rarely an appropriate measure of elegance.


Now I just could benchmark this and be smart afterwards, but I love to take
chances.
I guess your positive lookahead assertion will be slower than James'
reverse**2 technique.
I'll benchmark it right now...
BTW I prefer reverse ** 2 because I did not figure out the lookahead
solution ;)

Robert
<snip>
>
>
>

-- 
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important
things.
-Anonymous

------art_68925_1189583.1171303935842--