Re:Self-Taught Engineers Often Outperform
by userbinator on Friday July 18, 2025 @01:10AM
(#44601412)
sum += (x > 0 && y > 0 && x < x_limit && y < y_limit) ? a[y][x] : 0;
That took less than a minute of thought; or you could use a common technique in image and video processing, which is to make sure that the edges are always present but filled with appropriate values by defining your grid to be slightly bigger than the active area.And it doesn’t do what’s asked? Congrats.
Re:Self-Taught Engineers Often Outperform
by userbinator on Friday July 18, 2025 @02:53AM
(#44601953)
I just concentrated on what would be the hardest part, the "edge" cases (literally.) Wrapping that in a loop that goes through the appropriate indices is not much more work. There is a sibling dead comment to mine which has the rest.
Re:Self-Taught Engineers Often Outperform
by peterfirefly on Friday July 18, 2025 @06:20AM
(#44603060)
Should probably use
>=
Re:Self-Taught Engineers Often Outperform
by userbinator on Friday July 18, 2025 @09:42PM
(#44611778)
You're assuming closed instead of open intervals.
Re:Self-Taught Engineers Often Outperform
by peterfirefly on Sunday July 20, 2025 @09:00AM
(#44624810)
I was assuming zero-based arrays.
Re:Self-Taught Engineers Often Outperform
by jay_kyburz on Friday July 18, 2025 @02:04AM
(#44601684)
oops doesn't count the edges. Take another minute.
-- joking -- :)
And if I did have to do something like that at work, I promise my manager would give me more than 25 minutes to do it.