Anonymous user
Talk:Permutations with repetitions: Difference between revisions
Talk:Permutations with repetitions (view source)
Revision as of 06:49, 22 September 2016
, 7 years ago→Isn't it just similar to "Increment_a_numerical_string": new section
(→REXX implementation limits: added another variant of REXX version 2. -- ~~~~) |
(→Isn't it just similar to "Increment_a_numerical_string": new section) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==Mathematica solution incorrect?==
The task description says combination must be produced one at a time.
The Mathematica solution uses Tuples, which return a list of all permutations at once.
Is this a correct solution?
--[[User:Soegaard|Soegaard]] ([[User talk:Soegaard|talk]]) 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
==REXX implementation limits==
Line 6 ⟶ 12:
For Regina REXX 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, REXX gives a SYNTAX error:
:::::: Error 12 running "C:\xxxxxx.REX", line 29: [Clause
For Regina REXX 3.6, 3.7, REXX "crashes" somewhere less than a statement length of 1932,
Line 19 ⟶ 26:
For what's it worth, I believe REXX should raise the SYNTAX condition.
[The reason I mention the older versions of Regina REXX is that Regina
<br>virtual memory for those REXX programs which use a ''lot'' of stemmed variables (possibly a
<br>memory leak), so the use of the older Regina release is forced in lieu of a fix.
Line 30 ⟶ 37:
:::::: Error 5 on line 29 of C:\xxxxxx.REX: Machine resources exhausted
somewhere between 568 and 597 bytes.
It should be noted that most people use the maximum for the RXISA (which is 40K).
Line 36 ⟶ 43:
As far as I can tell, R4 and ROO have no (real) limitation for the length of an INTERPRET instruction,
<br>and that is probably true of CMS REXX and TSO REXX (it's been too long since I used those
<br>two flavors of REXX).
::::::::::: -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:
----
==another variant of the
This REXX version:
* simplifies many statements
Line 53 ⟶ 60:
* eliminates an extra ''';''' (semicolon) from the INTERPRET clause
* eliminates the need for counting the permutations
<br>If any of these improvements could/would be of use, that's fine. I plan to delete this entry in a couple of weeks. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 04:
<lang rexx>/*REXX*/ parse arg n m s names
if n='' then n=3
if m='' then m=2
if datatype(s,'N') then s=left('',s)
do k=1 to n
if names='' then e.k=k
Line 67 ⟶ 74:
a=a'z=e.d1'
do j=2 to m; a=a"||s||e.d"j; end /*j*/
a=a';say z'copies(";end",m)
if m==0 then do; say '1 permutation, a "null".'; exit; end
interpret a
say n**m 'permutations'</lang>
== Isn't it just similar to "Increment_a_numerical_string" ==
You set the length of the string to n fill it completly with "0" and set the base to k.
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Increment_a_numerical_string#Pascal
Of course you can use an array of integer instead.
| |||