Actually [+] is faster for values in range [129, 255] and [-] is faster for values in range [1, 127].
0 and 128 are indifferent. So you can prefer one over the other only if you have an idea of your values' distribution. In real cases, [-] seems better in most cases, as all ASCII characters are in range [0, 127].
Yup. Did the same but replacing the "-" by a "+", as I had thought in this particular case, going "upwards" would be "slightly faster" (like "254 max length instead of 255")...
...But now I'm thinking of it, it isn't, as the first bit we start at is not yet incremented; so still 255 max length in both cases...
...I guess I should have stayed with "-" as this version looks "cleaner"/"more explicit" ^^
OH re-wait; in fact, the "+" version might indeed be slightly "faster" after all: like 32386 increments instead of 32640 decrements...
...I guess... (Unless I'm wrong?.. I think I need some sleep)
Actually
[+]is faster for values in range [129, 255] and[-]is faster for values in range [1, 127].0 and 128 are indifferent. So you can prefer one over the other only if you have an idea of your values' distribution. In real cases,
[-]seems better in most cases, as all ASCII characters are in range [0, 127].Yup. Did the same but replacing the "-" by a "+", as I had thought in this particular case, going "upwards" would be "slightly faster" (like "254 max length instead of 255")...
...But now I'm thinking of it, it isn't, as the first bit we start at is not yet incremented; so still 255 max length in both cases...
...I guess I should have stayed with "-" as this version looks "cleaner"/"more explicit" ^^
OH re-wait; in fact, the "+" version might indeed be slightly "faster" after all: like 32386 increments instead of 32640 decrements...
...I guess... (Unless I'm wrong?.. I think I need some sleep)
The tests are working alright.
Switching versions did allow me to pass the kata, but like Unnamed said, the incorrect version needs to be disabled.
The wrong version should be disabled, probably some CW bug.
Use the other version.
Haskell translation is broken.
It appears to be working now
Try it now.
@tetrapharmakon
I confirm that the typo still exists
but still it's kinda odd that we have been given a value c that isn't guaranteed to be the biggest value, or atleast not in the sample tests.
PythagoreanTriple(5,3,4) , Equals(true)
The typo still exists.
Loading more items...