DosTips.com

As promised, here is a version that allows you to easily modify the list of available stamps. Instructions for how to modify the list are at the bottom of the code. It is currently configured and optimized to quickly compute solutions for the original list of stamps. But the first time you run with ...

Your code is too complicated to understand. Could you please make a list of stamps (values/display) more user friendly so new stamps could be added or removed with ease. One more thing: how can I use comma as a decimal point? If I replace '0.20' with '0,20' I get divide by zero. My new code at the ...

Wonderful - Thankyou

Thanks penpen. The failure comes from my erroneous 2nd postulate where I only allow a count of n or n-1 for any given denomination. I had to change the algorithm to allow each denomination to test more than 2 counts. It was surprisingly easy. I didn't spend much time trying to optimize the implement...

I investigated the performance, and I'm pretty sure the maximum number of CALLs to :solve must be <=111 for any given number. I tested all values from 1 to 4000, and the maximum number of CALLs was 55, and the vast majority required between 30 and 50 calls. I looked at the results of running 1 to 40...

I believe I have an efficient solution that quickly computes an optimal solution for any positive integral value supported by SET /A. Some values have multiple optimal solutions. My code finds the optimal solution with the highest possible number of D. My code is dependent on one additional postulat...

Actual best solution for 460: 2 X D 2 X C 2 X 0.02 or 4 X C 1 X A 1 X 0.20 Your first best solution is wrong. It gives 456, not 460... Sorry, I was sloppy and used a value of D=128 instead of D=126 :oops: Ok. This is my second attempt: I did some comparisons with penpen's code, and your result for ...

Impressive

Now I have to see if I can figure out how your code works

It is a lot easier than coming up with a solution :lol: I'm not sure how to translate this into a calculus multi-variable max/min problem (or even if it is possible). Like aGerman, it has been nearly 40 years. And I don't think I would want to do that in batch anyway :wink: In lieu of that, this see...

@Aacini - Nope :!: :twisted: Your result for 160: Possible solutions: 1- 5 stamps = 1@D 1@0.20 1@0.10 2@0.02 2- 4 stamps = 1@C 1@B 1@0.10 1@0.02 3- 6 stamps = 3@B 1@0.10 1@0.05 1@0.01 4- 4 stamps = 4@A 5- 8 stamps = 8@0.20 6- 16 stamps = 16@0.10 7- 32 stamps = 32@0.05 8- 80 stamps = 80@0.02 9- 160 s...

All of the listed solutions give the following for 60:

1 X B
1 X 0,10
1 X 0,02

The correct answer should be :

1 X A
1 X 0,20


Dave Benham

Because FOR /F options are parsed and interpreted before FOR variables are expanded. The fact that you are using FOR /F within a macro has nothing to do with the problem. It all makes sense if you study How does the Windows Command Interpreter (CMD.EXE) parse scripts? . You cannot use FOR variables ...

Hi Ed. That line is from Phil (pieh-ejdsch), not me. There is nothing mysterious about it. Starting value: "return.var=Hello world!" Starting statement: set "return.var=%return.var:!=!delayed!%" ! After percent expansion: set "return.var=Hello world!delayed!" ! After delayed expansion: set "return.v...

Hi Phil. The FOR /F loop to handle conditional escaping of ! and ^ is very clever, and the general concept of using 1 return variable instead of 2 is attractive. I did some tests, and your version does seem to work. But your code is inconsequentially longer, and doesn't seem to perform noticeably fa...

If delayedExpansion only takes effect shortly before the command is executed - it still resolves after the call but before the variable is resolved in double percent signs??? I'm not sure of the source of your confusion. Delayed expansion occurs in phase 5. Then the CALL is processed in phase 6, wh...