Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Friday programming quiz

Friday programming quiz

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
linqcsharpdata-structuresjsonfunctional
46 Posts 24 Posters 6 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J jesarg

    Although I don't know how the LINQ is resolved, it looks like it can't be worse than O(N^3). The Average() function costs N, the Min() costs N, the Where equals costs N, and the Select Average costs N * N. The worst nesting is N * N * N. Edited: it's at worst O(N^3).

    K Offline
    K Offline
    KP Lee
    wrote on last edited by
    #27

    I like Lambda expressions about as much as the help text for it is descriptive. (IE not much) I'll happily fail your quiz since I didn't sign up for your class and I'm really guessing at how this all works. In your example there were 10 items in the array. Your code:

    inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

    inputs.Average() loops 10 times, summing all parties and dividing by 10 to provide the average value. y in Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average()) is obviously an interation of inputs values. How it became the iteration value is because it is in the "Select" method, I think. However this expression has to be calculated 100 times (10 y's times Average's 10 loops) to find the Min() value. Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) will start on that 100 loop too, so that's 10,000 calculations. (I think that C# isn't smart enough to realize all these function calls on the right side produce a constant so every time the left equation is run, the right equation is re-run.) Aah, but you've put in First() so it will short-circuit the loop when 14 is found. Since 14 is the last value, that's 10,000 loops. :-D 7 Functions executed: Where (1) Math.Abs(2) Average(2) Min(1) First(1) I am never impressed with cute code. Lambda is almost always cute. 10 lines of straightforward code are more valuable than 1 line of cute. The following code

      int avg = inputs.Average();
      int dif1, dif2, val1;
      val1 = inputs\[0\];
      if (val1 > avg) dif1 = val1 - avg;
      else dif1 = avg - val1;
      foreach(int i in inputs) {
          if (i > avg) dif2 = i - avg;
          else dif2 = avg - i;
          if (dif2 < dif1) {
              dif1 = dif2;
              val1 = i;
          }
      }
    

    is more verbose, but even with archane variable names, to me, this seems easier to grasp without scratching your head and going: Now, what was that again???? When it is done, you have the average, the closest value to average, and the distance from average in three variables. However, show me the lambda code to do the same thing in 2*N loops my code uses instead of N^4 loops. OK, Math.Abs is easier to read, than if/else, but I think the code cost is about the same. Go ahead and use Abs, there's no advantage in using my 2 lines of code other than showing the function is fairly easy to replicate. Average is too valuable encapsulation to re-invent that wheel. With a 400 item array, 400^4 = 2

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • J jesarg

      I promised a programming quiz a couple weeks ago, so here's one: Given an array of integers, select the integer in the array that is the closest to the average of all integers in the array; you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement. If more than one integer is the closest, then any of the closest integers will do. For example, the following code should assign "14" to the int "closest":

      int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
      int closest = // put a LINQ lambda expression here

      If you're up for actually figuring out your own solution, ignore the rest of this post. OR If you're lazy and unethical, feel free to copy-paste the sample solution in the small text below and claim it as your own. inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

      S Offline
      S Offline
      sknake
      wrote on last edited by
      #28

      I gave it a shot and came up with an answer using a few less calls:

      int avg = inputs.OrderBy(i => Math.Abs(i - inputs.Average())).First();

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • K KP Lee

        I like Lambda expressions about as much as the help text for it is descriptive. (IE not much) I'll happily fail your quiz since I didn't sign up for your class and I'm really guessing at how this all works. In your example there were 10 items in the array. Your code:

        inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

        inputs.Average() loops 10 times, summing all parties and dividing by 10 to provide the average value. y in Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average()) is obviously an interation of inputs values. How it became the iteration value is because it is in the "Select" method, I think. However this expression has to be calculated 100 times (10 y's times Average's 10 loops) to find the Min() value. Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) will start on that 100 loop too, so that's 10,000 calculations. (I think that C# isn't smart enough to realize all these function calls on the right side produce a constant so every time the left equation is run, the right equation is re-run.) Aah, but you've put in First() so it will short-circuit the loop when 14 is found. Since 14 is the last value, that's 10,000 loops. :-D 7 Functions executed: Where (1) Math.Abs(2) Average(2) Min(1) First(1) I am never impressed with cute code. Lambda is almost always cute. 10 lines of straightforward code are more valuable than 1 line of cute. The following code

          int avg = inputs.Average();
          int dif1, dif2, val1;
          val1 = inputs\[0\];
          if (val1 > avg) dif1 = val1 - avg;
          else dif1 = avg - val1;
          foreach(int i in inputs) {
              if (i > avg) dif2 = i - avg;
              else dif2 = avg - i;
              if (dif2 < dif1) {
                  dif1 = dif2;
                  val1 = i;
              }
          }
        

        is more verbose, but even with archane variable names, to me, this seems easier to grasp without scratching your head and going: Now, what was that again???? When it is done, you have the average, the closest value to average, and the distance from average in three variables. However, show me the lambda code to do the same thing in 2*N loops my code uses instead of N^4 loops. OK, Math.Abs is easier to read, than if/else, but I think the code cost is about the same. Go ahead and use Abs, there's no advantage in using my 2 lines of code other than showing the function is fairly easy to replicate. Average is too valuable encapsulation to re-invent that wheel. With a 400 item array, 400^4 = 2

        P Offline
        P Offline
        PhilLenoir
        wrote on last edited by
        #29

        Hear,hear! I may be an old f*rt but readability of code is paramount for maintenance. If terse and difficult to understand code is also less efficient then it fails twice. Having said that, the competition rules were set bt the creator and I'm just an aging SQL hack! :P

        Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J Johnny J

          "We don't do homework!" AND "No programming questions in the Lounge..." ;P

          Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
          -----
          Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
          -----
          Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
          -----
          Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932

          P Offline
          P Offline
          PhilLenoir
          wrote on last edited by
          #30

          Johnny: Good sentiment, but I've only seen one alternate solution and lots of comment ... so maybe it works as a lounge post!

          Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.

          J 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P PhilLenoir

            Johnny: Good sentiment, but I've only seen one alternate solution and lots of comment ... so maybe it works as a lounge post!

            Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.

            J Offline
            J Offline
            Johnny J
            wrote on last edited by
            #31

            I was just pulling your leg - I have no objections to your post... ;)

            Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
            -----
            Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
            -----
            Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
            -----
            Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932

            P 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J Johnny J

              I was just pulling your leg - I have no objections to your post... ;)

              Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
              -----
              Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
              -----
              Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
              -----
              Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932

              P Offline
              P Offline
              PhilLenoir
              wrote on last edited by
              #32

              Not MY post Johnny and I was just :P

              Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J jesarg

                I promised a programming quiz a couple weeks ago, so here's one: Given an array of integers, select the integer in the array that is the closest to the average of all integers in the array; you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement. If more than one integer is the closest, then any of the closest integers will do. For example, the following code should assign "14" to the int "closest":

                int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                int closest = // put a LINQ lambda expression here

                If you're up for actually figuring out your own solution, ignore the rest of this post. OR If you're lazy and unethical, feel free to copy-paste the sample solution in the small text below and claim it as your own. inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

                A Offline
                A Offline
                alanevans
                wrote on last edited by
                #33

                int closest = inputs.Last(); Or have I missed the point? ;P

                K 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • D Daniel Grunwald

                  int closest = inputs.OrderBy(i => Math.Abs(i - inputs.Average())).FirstOrDefault();

                  This is O(N²) as Average() gets called for every sort key that gets calculated. We can do better by storing the average in a variable. And we can use LINQ to introduce variables within an expression:

                  int closest = (from avg in new[] { inputs.Average() }
                  from i in inputs
                  orderby Math.Abs(i - avg)
                  select i).FirstOrDefault();

                  This is O(N log N), but note that instead of sorting, we just need to find the minimum. Sadly, all the Min() methods compare the element itself, not just a key. However, we can build a suitable implementation using Aggregate():

                  int closest = (from avg in new[] { inputs.Average() }
                  select inputs.Aggregate((a, b) => Math.Abs(a - avg) < Math.Abs(b - avg) ? a : b)
                  ).Single();

                  This runs in linear time, and does pretty much the same as an implementation using a loop would do.

                  A Offline
                  A Offline
                  alanevans
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #34

                  Great answer. Can use let rather than that new []{} however: int closest = (from i in inputs
                  let avg = inputs.Average()
                  select inputs.Aggregate((a, b) => Math.Abs(a - avg) < Math.Abs(b - avg) ? a : b)
                  ).Single();
                  That is actually wrong, but this works and average is called just once:

                          int closest = (from c in "A" //just to get it to loop once
                                         let avg = inputs.Average()
                                         select inputs.Aggregate((a, b) => Math.Abs(a - avg) < Math.Abs(b - avg) ? a : b)
                            ).Single();
                  

                  Does anyone know of a nicer way to cause just one loop in linq than my 'from c in "A"' trick?

                  A 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • A alanevans

                    Great answer. Can use let rather than that new []{} however: int closest = (from i in inputs
                    let avg = inputs.Average()
                    select inputs.Aggregate((a, b) => Math.Abs(a - avg) < Math.Abs(b - avg) ? a : b)
                    ).Single();
                    That is actually wrong, but this works and average is called just once:

                            int closest = (from c in "A" //just to get it to loop once
                                           let avg = inputs.Average()
                                           select inputs.Aggregate((a, b) => Math.Abs(a - avg) < Math.Abs(b - avg) ? a : b)
                              ).Single();
                    

                    Does anyone know of a nicer way to cause just one loop in linq than my 'from c in "A"' trick?

                    A Offline
                    A Offline
                    Adar Wesley
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #35

                    This little change you suggest puts the perfomance back to O(N^2) and not linear. inputs.Average() gets called for each element in the inputs array. Daniel's solution is the correct one. --- Adar Wesley

                    A 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J jesarg

                      I promised a programming quiz a couple weeks ago, so here's one: Given an array of integers, select the integer in the array that is the closest to the average of all integers in the array; you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement. If more than one integer is the closest, then any of the closest integers will do. For example, the following code should assign "14" to the int "closest":

                      int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                      int closest = // put a LINQ lambda expression here

                      If you're up for actually figuring out your own solution, ignore the rest of this post. OR If you're lazy and unethical, feel free to copy-paste the sample solution in the small text below and claim it as your own. inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

                      M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Member_5893260
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #36

                      Here's a good couple of questions to give programmers you're thinking of hiring -- if they can answer these, it's a good bet you've found yourself someone who can think a bit...: 1. In C, what does this do (and no, it doesn't matter what types the variables are as long as they're the same type)?   a^=b^=a^=b; 2. In SQL, given the following tables (relationships being obvious), write a query which returns the names of the people who play *every* sport:   People   PersonID int   PersonName varchar(50)   Sports   SportID int   SportName varchar(50)   PeopleSports   PersonID int   SportID int

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J jesarg

                        I promised a programming quiz a couple weeks ago, so here's one: Given an array of integers, select the integer in the array that is the closest to the average of all integers in the array; you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement. If more than one integer is the closest, then any of the closest integers will do. For example, the following code should assign "14" to the int "closest":

                        int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                        int closest = // put a LINQ lambda expression here

                        If you're up for actually figuring out your own solution, ignore the rest of this post. OR If you're lazy and unethical, feel free to copy-paste the sample solution in the small text below and claim it as your own. inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

                        R Offline
                        R Offline
                        Robbie Couret
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #37

                        Could be simplified to:

                        int closest = inputs.First(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Min(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())));

                        but I don't like to perform the same calculation twice, so I'd be more comfortable with:

                        double avg = inputs.Average();
                        int closest = inputs.First(x => Math.Abs(x - avg) == inputs.Min(y => Math.Abs(y - avg)));

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • J jesarg

                          I promised a programming quiz a couple weeks ago, so here's one: Given an array of integers, select the integer in the array that is the closest to the average of all integers in the array; you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement. If more than one integer is the closest, then any of the closest integers will do. For example, the following code should assign "14" to the int "closest":

                          int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                          int closest = // put a LINQ lambda expression here

                          If you're up for actually figuring out your own solution, ignore the rest of this post. OR If you're lazy and unethical, feel free to copy-paste the sample solution in the small text below and claim it as your own. inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

                          J Offline
                          J Offline
                          John Petrak2
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #38

                          int closest = inputs.OrderBy(x => Math.Abs(inputs.Average() - x)).First();

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • J jesarg

                            I promised a programming quiz a couple weeks ago, so here's one: Given an array of integers, select the integer in the array that is the closest to the average of all integers in the array; you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement. If more than one integer is the closest, then any of the closest integers will do. For example, the following code should assign "14" to the int "closest":

                            int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                            int closest = // put a LINQ lambda expression here

                            If you're up for actually figuring out your own solution, ignore the rest of this post. OR If you're lazy and unethical, feel free to copy-paste the sample solution in the small text below and claim it as your own. inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

                            H Offline
                            H Offline
                            Harley L Pebley
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #39

                            Here are two alternate implementations. Two might be cheating a bit, but it satisfies the "only one semi-colon" rule. :-) As others have pointed out, the answer you gave is pretty slow. To those who say LINQ can't be fast, algorithm choice makes a huge difference. I ran tests for the three implementations over the original input set, the values 1-99 and -499 to 499. To help average out timing inconsistencies, the tests were run 10,000 times. Values are in ms.

                            Quiz inputs

                            100 items

                            1000 items

                            Quiz solution

                            284

                            84,573

                            Unknown. I stopped it after about 6 hours.

                            Alternate 1

                            80

                            1,945

                            167,099

                            Alternate 2

                            75

                            479

                            7,246

                            Alternate 1

                            int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                            int closest = inputs
                            .Select(i => new {val = i, dist = Math.Abs(i - inputs.Average())})
                            .OrderBy(a => a.dist)
                            .First().val;

                            Alternate 2

                            int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                            int closest = (from x in new []{1}
                            let avg = inputs.Average()
                            from i in inputs
                            select new { val = i, dist = Math.Abs(i-avg)})
                            .OrderBy(a => a.dist)
                            .First().val

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Samuel Cragg

                              Not a very efficient approach (and hope I'm not cheating, there is only one semi-colon!) but here goes:

                              int closest = (from t in
                              from i in inputs
                              let avg = inputs.Average()
                              select new { Number = i, Delta = Math.Abs(i - avg) }
                              orderby t.Delta
                              select t.Number).FirstOrDefault();

                              K Offline
                              K Offline
                              KP Lee
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #40

                              I'm not familiar with linq nor lambda, but I really like this solution over the original suggested one. Am I right that t is an implied class that contains 2 fields? 1. It doesn't take work to understand the logic. 2. Rather than N^4 loops, this has N^2. (Like you said, not efficient, but much better than the original.)

                              S 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • B Bruno Tagliapietra

                                maybe I've found an alternative inputs.Select(x => new { OriginalValue = x, Distance = Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) }).OrderBy(a => a.Distance).First().OriginalValue;

                                K Offline
                                K Offline
                                KP Lee
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #41

                                It is an alternative. Daniel Grunwald's solution posted just ahead of yours is better.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • A alanevans

                                  int closest = inputs.Last(); Or have I missed the point? ;P

                                  K Offline
                                  K Offline
                                  KP Lee
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #42

                                  That's definitely the fastest and most efficient method to get a correct answer in this specific case. Other than that, ya, you missed the point. ;P

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • K KP Lee

                                    I'm not familiar with linq nor lambda, but I really like this solution over the original suggested one. Am I right that t is an implied class that contains 2 fields? 1. It doesn't take work to understand the logic. 2. Rather than N^4 loops, this has N^2. (Like you said, not efficient, but much better than the original.)

                                    S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    Samuel Cragg
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #43

                                    Actually, if I was doing it again I would use Daniel Grunwald trick to calculate the average only once:

                                    int closest = (from avg in new [] { inputs.Average() }
                                    from i in inputs
                                    orderby Math.Abs(i - avg)
                                    select i).FirstOrDefault();

                                    Using the lambda format (as per the rules :) ) I believe this translates to:

                                    int closest = new[] { inputs.Average() }
                                    .SelectMany(avg => inputs.OrderBy(i => Math.Abs(i - avg)))
                                    .FirstOrDefault();

                                    I believe this solution will iterate over the original collection twice - once for the average, once for the ordering, but have no idea what the big O number is for the ordering.

                                    K 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • J jesarg

                                      I promised a programming quiz a couple weeks ago, so here's one: Given an array of integers, select the integer in the array that is the closest to the average of all integers in the array; you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement. If more than one integer is the closest, then any of the closest integers will do. For example, the following code should assign "14" to the int "closest":

                                      int[] inputs = {1, 2, 3, 5, -1, 7, 145, -33, 22, 14};
                                      int closest = // put a LINQ lambda expression here

                                      If you're up for actually figuring out your own solution, ignore the rest of this post. OR If you're lazy and unethical, feel free to copy-paste the sample solution in the small text below and claim it as your own. inputs.Where(x => Math.Abs(x - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Select(y => Math.Abs(y - inputs.Average())).Min()).First();

                                      R Offline
                                      R Offline
                                      RyanDonahue
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #44

                                      We saw fairly eye to eye.. Here was my first go:

                                      int closest = inputs.FirstOrDefault(num => Math.Abs((Math.Abs(num) - (int)inputs.Average())) == inputs.Min(diff => Math.Abs(Math.Abs(diff) - (int)(inputs.Average()))));

                                      And with some visual optimization

                                      int closest = inputs.FirstOrDefault(num => Math.Abs(num - inputs.Average()) == inputs.Min(diff => Math.Abs(diff - inputs.Average())));

                                      [EDIT] And thinking a bit more about it

                                      int closest = inputs.Select(input => new
                                      {
                                      input,
                                      diff = Math.Abs(input - inputs.Average())
                                      }).OrderBy(x => x.diff).FirstOrDefault().input;

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S Samuel Cragg

                                        Actually, if I was doing it again I would use Daniel Grunwald trick to calculate the average only once:

                                        int closest = (from avg in new [] { inputs.Average() }
                                        from i in inputs
                                        orderby Math.Abs(i - avg)
                                        select i).FirstOrDefault();

                                        Using the lambda format (as per the rules :) ) I believe this translates to:

                                        int closest = new[] { inputs.Average() }
                                        .SelectMany(avg => inputs.OrderBy(i => Math.Abs(i - avg)))
                                        .FirstOrDefault();

                                        I believe this solution will iterate over the original collection twice - once for the average, once for the ordering, but have no idea what the big O number is for the ordering.

                                        K Offline
                                        K Offline
                                        KP Lee
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #45

                                        I really can't judge LINQ, nor lambda statements because I don't have the experience with them. The original rule was "you must use nothing but a single LINQ lambda statement." Someone else complained that the original poster used two lambda statements. As far as I can tell, the original poster used two lambda variables in a single statement. My complaint about the original statement was that it was too hard to read. Then I complained about the efficiency of the original which would loop between N^3 and N^4 times. That was after taking the time to really understand what the first statement said. I came up with a set of C# commands that would find the answer in N*2 loops. Using two if statements and either one or three more statements per loop. Once I get over the "You define the variable, then you assign a statement's value to it" prejudice, your lambda statement is very readable, more elegant than my solution and with internal optimizations going on, your N*3 loops may be as fast or faster than my N*2 loops. I may even find the "Define the statement, then assign the variable" process enjoyable in time. Daniel still gets credit for first finding a good lambda expression. :)

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • A Adar Wesley

                                          This little change you suggest puts the perfomance back to O(N^2) and not linear. inputs.Average() gets called for each element in the inputs array. Daniel's solution is the correct one. --- Adar Wesley

                                          A Offline
                                          A Offline
                                          alanevans
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #46

                                          Good point, I just wanted to use let and drop the new[]. I believe I have manged it now if you look back at my post.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups