yes we can do it,in c
#include
Perl is both compiled and interpreted language. In the traditional sense, Perl is a pure interpreted language. The reference Perl program is a prototypical two-stage interpreter: when a Perl script is invoked via #!/bin/perl (or similar), the perl interpreter performs a language parsing on the source code, creating an internal (to the perl interpreter) representation of program, which is then translated into binary code for execution. Every invocation of a perl program requires this translation/interpretation to be completed. There are several projects which can take perl source code and compile it down to a binary executable (that is, bypass the whole repeated translate/interpret phase each time). However, these are NOT complete - even the best can only manage about 95% of the perl code available. That is, these perl compiler are incomplete implementations of the Perl language. They can be very useful, but are not complete substitutes for the Perl interpreter. The real answer is that Perl was designed to be an interpreted language from the start; attempts to turn Perl into a compiled language are faced with the difficulty of Perl's sprawling syntax and complete lack of design for compilation, and thus, struggle to implement all the languages features in a compiler.
Ronaldo! 'c' coding of Ricart-agarwala algorithm
dfgbrgffee
yes we can do it,in c
#include
Perl is both compiled and interpreted language. In the traditional sense, Perl is a pure interpreted language. The reference Perl program is a prototypical two-stage interpreter: when a Perl script is invoked via #!/bin/perl (or similar), the perl interpreter performs a language parsing on the source code, creating an internal (to the perl interpreter) representation of program, which is then translated into binary code for execution. Every invocation of a perl program requires this translation/interpretation to be completed. There are several projects which can take perl source code and compile it down to a binary executable (that is, bypass the whole repeated translate/interpret phase each time). However, these are NOT complete - even the best can only manage about 95% of the perl code available. That is, these perl compiler are incomplete implementations of the Perl language. They can be very useful, but are not complete substitutes for the Perl interpreter. The real answer is that Perl was designed to be an interpreted language from the start; attempts to turn Perl into a compiled language are faced with the difficulty of Perl's sprawling syntax and complete lack of design for compilation, and thus, struggle to implement all the languages features in a compiler.
Ronaldo! 'c' coding of Ricart-agarwala algorithm
dfgbrgffee
algorithm on multiple queues in a single dimensional array
8798797
Dancer 2
Both algorithms have the same efficiency and both are based on the same greedy approach. But Kruskal's algorithm is much easier to implement.
Yes, C and Perl can be made to talk together quite well. XS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XS_(Perl)) is the most widely used method for doing this - it allows you to write binding to C or C++ code so it can be called as a perl subroutine. Inline::C (http://search.cpan.org/~ingy/Inline-0.44/C/C.pod) is another method - it allows you to write C code inside Perl code and generates the necessary XS automatically. If you want to call perl code from C, you can link against libperl.
Algorithm is easy to implement Produce a lossless compression of images
Stack implementations allow us to easily implement backtracking algorithms.