The examples should be an image or ascii/unicode visualisation instead, so that the solver does not need to wonder whether it contains hidden information in its text, and to make it easier to parse in general.

All the rest of the instructions below the rules table should be replaced with an explanation of what part of the data to return, that current text is difficult to read and says nothing.

The wikipedia mention should instead be a hyperlink for the first two words "Rule 30" so as to not make the solver question whether there is required information there that the instructions leave out. Also improves signal-to-noise ratio.

I have updated the encoding to reduce the nesting by another layer and included much harder problems. Up to 15 x 15 now!

oh

my solution accounts for big and little endian platforms (tested on PowerPC and x86_64) but it's hard to tackle the middle-endian shenanigans ^^

Raised as an issue.

At the same time, the input arg phi means the azimuth at sunrise

What is implicating this?

I'm still not sure, what is the problem.

As much as I understand, geoffp means that after passing through the overhead point (zenith), actual azimuth of the Sun changes by 180 degrees. For example, if the azimuth is 45deg before the noon, it becomes 225 deg after the noon. At the same time, the input arg phi means the azimuth at sunrise, and not at current clock.

Hey, I worked on this kata around 10 months ago, so I've almost forgot all the particularities associated with this, can you please ellaborate a bit more?

From what I can read from the test cases and description, you must've mean that the convention used for azimuth should be specified, and I think here, it is the angle of projected vector of position vector of sun on x-y plane, measured from the positive y axis along the anti-clockwise direction(right hand rule). So is this the specification that I need to put, or I've no idea what is wrong?

errr... About what part? x)

If that's about the "duplicate" one, maybe you should just unpublish it, then? (I know, it's painful, especially when you put a lot of efforts into the kata already... :s )

Yeah, you're probably right too.

aside from the cosmetic, what's the actual difference with the 1 kyu? Are you really sure that's not a duplicate? (the actual question boils down to: does the user need to implement the same kind of logic than in the 1kyu? If so, yours would be a duplicate).

Or is the key point: You can reset the game in case you failed?

too easy for 2kyu. I've rated it 4kyu

Yeah, a fair point.

Actually, looking back with a fresh vision on what I've done here, I'm not very satisfied. I can spot some major issues, including the one you mentioned, (or for example that it is still possible to pass without solving by using somereinterpret_cast and looking into the source code, which is apparently possible on CW, I didn't know that back then), and also imho it doesn't follow the guidelines very well, and also not very translatable to other languages. So, shortly saying, ~yeah.

Probably, I should remove it and recreate it from scratch. Or just remove it. Dunno.

glad you like it. 8)