For the record, I believe that I might be the one who sent the author on a chase of the wild goose of the accuracy and exact calculations. There already was another kata which implemented this isdea with floats, but it did not make through beta. I do realize how frustrating it can be to get two exactly opposite sets of directions, but I stand at my opinion: I still believe that using imprecise representations and approximate comparisons trades a very interesting (and difficult!) aspect of handling monetary calculations with computer software for a not very interesting aspect of imprecise calculations with oversimplified data types and a one-shot formula. In my personal opinion, this turns the problem from a challenging coding task into a mildly interesting "math, not coding" kind of task and we have plenty of those.
But it's just my opinon, YMMV. I also sincerely apologise for any inconvenience and frustration which I might have caused to the author, and not unlikely being wrong about something. However, I would still be more interested with a "correct", domain-accurate solution, than an approximate, mathy solution.
Dang I'd have to do some math but 88k is WAY more than I expected it to be. I am also not sure how your scipt handles discarding of equivalent, rotated/flipped boards, but I can't test it today, I will try tomorrow.
It depends what you mean by "properly randomly generated", but if you mean 100 or 1_000 or 10_000 tests generated with random spray, then this would not help much either? You will always have some potentially interesting positions which will not make into the tested pool. The best way would be to generate and test all possible board setups (modulo transformations), which would boil down to a couple of thousands of tests cases I believe? Is it possibl to test this task by running the solution on all "uniquely relevant" boards?
I plan to remove this requirement and introduce fuzzy equality in all languages.
Adds missing shuffling of input arrays.
Description states:
I agree that this might not be the greatest explanation for
1001amd10001, but it still explains1,111, and111111pretty well.merged
For the record, I believe that I might be the one who sent the author on a chase of the wild goose of the accuracy and exact calculations. There already was another kata which implemented this isdea with floats, but it did not make through beta. I do realize how frustrating it can be to get two exactly opposite sets of directions, but I stand at my opinion: I still believe that using imprecise representations and approximate comparisons trades a very interesting (and difficult!) aspect of handling monetary calculations with computer software for a not very interesting aspect of imprecise calculations with oversimplified data types and a one-shot formula. In my personal opinion, this turns the problem from a challenging coding task into a mildly interesting "math, not coding" kind of task and we have plenty of those.
But it's just my opinon, YMMV. I also sincerely apologise for any inconvenience and frustration which I might have caused to the author, and not unlikely being wrong about something. However, I would still be more interested with a "correct", domain-accurate solution, than an approximate, mathy solution.
Approved.
Fixed
Nah I just forgot 1 sec
Dang I'd have to do some math but 88k is WAY more than I expected it to be. I am also not sure how your scipt handles discarding of equivalent, rotated/flipped boards, but I can't test it today, I will try tomorrow.
It depends what you mean by "properly randomly generated", but if you mean 100 or 1_000 or 10_000 tests generated with random spray, then this would not help much either? You will always have some potentially interesting positions which will not make into the tested pool. The best way would be to generate and test all possible board setups (modulo transformations), which would boil down to a couple of thousands of tests cases I believe? Is it possibl to test this task by running the solution on all "uniquely relevant" boards?
Are the strings not quoted in messages on purpose?
You can try again, I added failure messages for users who did not buy the paid subscription.
Presents inputs of failed tests
No, everyone can see failed test cases for free. Usually tests show them, but if they don't, everyone can use
printto see them.If your solution times out, it means it does not pass all tests. It passes some tests, but not all of them, because it runs out of time.
Paid users have some additional features, but they do not get easier tests.
Loading more items...