andrejbauer

drdrang

#!/usr/bin/python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

from sys import argv
from time import strftime

clocks = {'12:00': '🕛', '12:30': '🕧',  '1:00': '🕐',  '1:30': '🕜',
           '2:00': '🕑',  '2:30': '🕝',  '3:00': '🕒',  '3:30': '🕞',
           '4:00': '🕓',  '4:30': '🕟',  '5:00': '🕔',  '5:30': '🕠',
           '6:00': '🕕',  '6:30': '🕡',  '7:00': '🕖',  '7:30': '🕢',

scmx

Upgrade/Install ruby 2.1.2

ubuntu 12.04 14.04

Reference http://stackoverflow.com/a/18490935/2037928

Login as root

Install needed packages

apt-get -y install build-essential zlib1g-dev libssl-dev libreadline6-dev libyaml-dev

darius

"""
Would this make a better random.sample() function for the Python
standard library? Robert Floyd's algorithm as presented in Jon
Bentley, "A Sample of Brilliance".

Answer: no, it's slower; somewhat slower even if you tune it.
I tried a few different test cases -- both small and large 
result lists. I'd expect it to use much less memory in some cases,
but my flailings turned up no case where that seemed to matter.