O, it's nothing ;)
OK, I can now answer my own question.
This means there was a segfault.
Read more here.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
I keep getting Error 139 (when running sample tests and the actual tests) -- has anyone else run into this problem?
I think you're right, and putting aside large sequences - it can be done better.
Thx, I feel convinced.
Although, I think adding an "Optimum" score wouldn't be a very bad idea.
Also, your solution is actually the first thing I came up with and it would (probably) be the cleanest approach.
TBH, I've heard those words of wisdom once or twice, but I never really took them to heart...
This solution has the highest "BestPractices" (22 as of now), and I admit - it's pretty.
But is it the fastest?
For instance, one might try and sort both arrays and use binary search on array "b" to check if an element from "a" occurs in "b". And because they are both sorted, discard the part of "b" in which we know all elements are smaller/larger than the current element from "a".
Am I making any sense?
That's a very nice thread you posted there, THX!