<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
</div>He, press ALT-v to get versions of #combinations:atATimeDo: and thanks tk!</blockquote><div><br>:)<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
I like bit sift solution too for it's simplicity.</blockquote><div><br>me too even if we could argue this is not self explaining...<br>That's what Andres Valoud said here (thanks Marcin): <a href="http://blogten.blogspot.com/2005/09/very-nice-methods.html">http://blogten.blogspot.com/2005/09/very-nice-methods.html</a><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
The problem is that it will iterate p times for creating each subset of size p.<br>
#combinations:atATimeDo: does not. It is building subsets in parallel.</blockquote><div><br>uhm, ok...<br>the diferrence is an order or 2 more or less...<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
The required copy does an iteration though, but in a primitive!<br>
Hence the difference...<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
Nicolas<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>Thanks all, this was fun and interesting ;)... <br><br>Cédrick<br></div></div><br></div>