Arrays within arrays
Locked
 
|
Why doesn't this work?
strength := Array new: 10. strength := #( #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(2 1 0 0) #( 8 4 0 1) #(14 6 0 2) #(30 12 1 4)). I read that the contents of an array are objects and the arrays inside of strength are objects but Smalltalk simply refuses to accept this assignment. I didn't want to say a := #(0 0 0 0). b := #(2 1 0 0). c := #(8 4 0 1) ... etc. and then strength := #( a a a a a a b c ... etc but it appears this may be necessary. I suppose a, b, c, etc are temporary variables and will disappear after use but it seems like a terrible waste. _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Gray <[hidden email]> writes:
Charles> strength := Array new: 10. You don't need to do that, if you're doing this: Charles> strength := #( #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) Charles> #(2 1 0 0) #( 8 4 0 1) #(14 6 0 2) #(30 12 1 4)). And that works for me. What version are you using? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
In reply to this post by Charles Gray-3
At Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:14:44 +0000 (UTC),
Charles Gray wrote: > > Why doesn't this work? > > strength := Array new: 10. > strength := #( #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) > #(2 1 0 0) #( 8 4 0 1) #(14 6 0 2) #(30 12 1 4)). Why do you have two assignments here? The literal syntax has a bit of context sensitive-ness. In a literal array, the # is not necessary to mean nested literal array. So, strength := #((0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (2 1 0 0) (8 4 0 1) (14 6 0 2) (30 12 1 4)). Also works. > I read that the contents of an array are objects and the arrays inside of > strength are objects but Smalltalk simply refuses to accept this assignment. I > didn't want to say a := #(0 0 0 0). b := #(2 1 0 0). c := #(8 4 0 1) ... etc. > and then strength := #( a a a a a a b c ... etc but it appears this may be > necessary. I suppose a, b, c, etc are temporary variables and will disappear > after use but it seems like a terrible waste. It doesn't refuse the assignment, right? And you can't use a variable in a literal array to mean the contents of the variable. Or, the above is actually a simplified code, and some other object is holding onto the reference to the "Array new: 10" array? If you assign a new array created from the literal array syntax into the same name variable, the guy who is holding onto the reference to "Array new: 10" wouldn't see the change. -- Yoshiki Just curious, but what do these numbers represent? _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
<snip>
#((2 1 0 0) (4 3 0 1) (10 6 0 2) (23 14 0 4) (43 27 1 8) (74 51 2 16) (115 82 3 16)). The totals are #(271 184 6 31). In the case of the first two numbers, I add them up for each suit, multiply by ten and divide by the total giving me a number from 0 to 40 that is similar to the work point count commonly used to evaluate bridge hands using 4, 3, 2, 1 for ace through jack for strength evaluation. Now that I think about it I can simply multiply each of the original numbers by 10 to eliminate that step. I know that's more than you what to know about the numbers but you asked. The traditional 4, 3, 2, 1 evaluation undervalues aces and kings. Different numbers are used for suit play and notrump play because there is no chance that a card will be trumped during play. A human would find it difficult to use this method of evaluation but it is no problem for a computer. By the way, I was just converting procedures I had written in Forth and Ruby to Smalltalk. Now if I could just learn not to think in sequential terms. Charlie Charlie _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
At Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:59:08 -0700,
Charles Gray wrote: > > Gee, that was easy. Thanks. I never guessed that you had to leave > the #'s off inside the array. I still wonder what version of image you are using. In the image I'm using, I can evalute: #((0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (2 1 0 0) (8 4 0 1) (14 6 0 2) (30 12 1 4)) = #(#(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(2 1 0 0) #( 8 4 0 1) #(14 6 0 2) #(30 12 1 4)) and get true. > Those particular numbers > don't mean anything. They were just an example of my problem. In my bridge dealer program, there are four sets of values > assigned to each card. The first two numbers give the relative strength of a card when playing in a suit contract and > when playing in a notrump contract. The numbers are based on the extensive double-dummy analysis performed by Thomas > Andrew. The third number is is what some players of the Moscito bidding system call AKQ or slam points, and the fourth > number is simply a binary representation that I use for determining loser count. I wasn't trying to be sneaky. The real > numbers from 8 up to ace are: > #((2 1 0 0) (4 3 0 1) (10 6 0 2) (23 14 0 4) (43 27 1 8) (74 51 2 16) (115 82 3 16)). > The totals are #(271 184 6 31). In the case of the first two numbers, I add them up for each suit, multiply by ten and > divide by the total giving me a number from 0 to 40 that is similar to the work point count commonly used to evaluate > bridge hands using 4, 3, 2, 1 for ace through jack for strength evaluation. Now that I think about it I can simply > multiply each of the original numbers by 10 to eliminate that step. > > I know that's more than you what to know about the numbers but you asked. The traditional 4, 3, 2, 1 evaluation > undervalues aces and kings. Different numbers are used for suit play and notrump play because there is no chance that a > card will be trumped during play. A human would find it difficult to use this method of evaluation but it is no problem > for a computer. By the way, I was just converting procedures I had written in Forth and Ruby to Smalltalk. Now if I > could just learn not to think in sequential terms. Thank you! -- Yoshiki _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
«
Return to Squeak - Beginners
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |