Fork of eurydice5717's translation that resolves this issue caused by overflow. Each call to generate a random value now constructs its own int distribution, removing the arithmetic and guaranteeing that the numbers are in range.
C++ version. Contrary to the description, negative arguments are fed to the function.
The expected results for negative fractions look strange: Incorrect result for fractionToPeriodic(-1689246217, 36291): Expected: equal to "-46547.(-2-4-90-9-7-5-7-2-400-...)"
super clever! :)
This iterates through the array n * n times in worst case.
.
approved by someone
Fork published
Fork of
eurydice5717's translation that resolves this issue caused by overflow. Each call to generate a random value now constructs its own int distribution, removing the arithmetic and guaranteeing that the numbers are in range.C++ version. Contrary to the description, negative arguments are fed to the function.
The expected results for negative fractions look strange:
Incorrect result for fractionToPeriodic(-1689246217, 36291): Expected: equal to "-46547.(-2-4-90-9-7-5-7-2-400-...)"Fixed now. Thank you very much.
Suddenly it looks so simple.
Should it be mentioned that the function is pure or am I missing something?
I get a SIGABRT with my code. Surely, my code is wrong but I do not allocate any memory so how is it possible?
Besides, I'm seeing
Expected: "*&ikh)ihg&j'kj%&hij'-&'*ih)h'"which should not be possible ("Every String consists of only lowercase letters and spaces.")
Using the very big hammer, nice.
This won't handle empty lists. Tests have been updated to check for that.
no it's not, the reference solution was using a
+instead of*. fixed.Ruby version: For "" (empty string) the expected return is false although all gs are happy. Is that correct?
Loading more items...