rejected by JohanWiltink.

approved by someone.

Don't import ast or a module ...

I am not importing anything!

Rejected for using outdated language version.

Forking is still possible, so no work is necessarily lost.

Rejected for using outdated language version.

Forking is still possible, so no work is necessarily lost.

Rejected for using outdated language version.

Forking is still possible, so no work is necessarily lost.

Rejected for using outdated language version.

Forking is still possible, so no work is necessarily lost.

Oh my God. what kind of Bitboards !!!!!!!!!!!

almost assembly

lmao broke syntax highlighting

I'd approve but for "Failed to approve: translation must be pending over a week or the kata author must be inactive for the past month".

I still can't prove the random generator correct, and the reference solution is not independent from the random generator ( if the latter generates ambiguous data, the former will happily intercalate "," . map show it ), but I'd trust you it works. I'm sorry I can't override the waiting period.

This kata is so simple that it's a bit of a struggle coming up with a different solution lol

Anyways, reference solution added to the tests in an edit. I'm gonna leave the generator as-is instead of relaxing the checks.

OK, that TLDR is already commented in.

There's still a lot of logic in the generator, and the reference solution still relies on the generator not generating cases with different possible solutions.

Again, I trust you that it works, but running a gazillion tests against one example solution only proves that this particular combination does not have any problems; any bugs may cancel out. I would still really like to see a reference solution different from the example solution and independent of the random generator, because the random generator is too involved to prove right by reading the code ( at least without spending hours ). Right now, I'd just be taking your word for it. ( If I'm not explaining my problem well enough, or using concepts obvious to me but not you, I can try to clarify further; if so, please do ask. )

Another possibility is having two separate example solutions; that would validate the random generator independently and massively decrease the chances of cancelling bugs in solution and random generator. ( The second solution can be in testing with some code to test either the user solution or the reference one, or it can be in the example solution and commented out so it can be commented in. )