Daniel X Moore wrote:
> Wow, this is some great discussion! Both piano and guitar chords are
> fine, some of the benefits on these broader quizzes are seeing
> alternative solutions and understanding the problem from different
> angles. Likewise the discussions about the differences between
> classical and jazz are also welcome. After all, the most important
> part of any programming project is understanding the domain.
> 
> This writeup is going to be a fun one. Keep the solutions and the
> discussion coming!

Thanks for the confirmation. I agree, can't wait until the writeup is 
posted.
On reviewing David Springer's solution, I found that our solutions are 
quite similar (actually, mine's pretty much the same except shorter and 
with more regex - after completion, it'll probably be a lot closer). 
Would both of our solution merit entries on the Ruby Quiz website?
Also, could someone with some time give a brief run-through of what 
happens when Evan Hanson's code is run? I don't think I understand it. 
What I think happens:
Make a new Chord object
Chord#initialize:
  Set @name to the note and @numval to to the notes position in 
Map.sharps
  Parse note skipping the first character and sharp/flat it if it's b or 
# (I'd use a different method though, becouse susb or something would be 
picked up)
    Flat things by subtracting one from @numval (I think it should have 
an error check, @numval=11 if (@numval-=1)<0 to make it easier to port 
to other languages) and changing the value of @name (easier done in my 
opinion by using Map.flats[@numval])
    Sharp things by adding one from @numval (I think it should have an 
error check, @numval=0 if (@numval+=1)==12 to make it easier to port to 
other languages) and changing the value of @name (easier done in my 
opinion by using Map.sharps[@numval])
Chord#to_s:
  Returns @name
But that would only return the input in a fancy way! I don't see how it 
returns chords.

David Springer wrote:
> I'm not sure about the etiquette of attaching a non-compressed file.
Personally, I prefer the attachment of non-compressed files to the 
attachment of compressed files or inline code, because it keeps the 
thread short, makes the code easier to read (all-the-way-left-justified 
and full width), and the code is easier to download (for me, it takes 
just 10 keystrokes, no need to search for where it begins/ends and 
click+drag). That's just me, though, and Hal Fulton doesn't agree:
> Frankly, I'd rather see inline code rather than an attachment. Especially if attaching doesn't save any space.

Thanks in advance, Ben.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.