Hi there I'm still failing on some random tests even tough the code should work. The proposed "correct" result can't be correct.
Example: diff (cos (* 52 x)) --> Expected: (* 3 (* 2 x)) or (* 6 x) which is incorrect

Edit: commutativity of multiplication is also still a problem
Edit2: Otherwise a really great Kata

there are sometimes "some" delays about solutions showing up correctly in the related page. It's a know "tiny bug" on CW. Generally, all get in order in a matter of a few minutes. These last few days, that was rather a matter of hours if not days (big bug).

Hi, any idea why my solution isn't showing up in the "Solutions" section, even though i completed it and can see my solution in "Past solutions" and in "Compare with my solution" ?!

Great Kata in theory IMO but it isn't easy to validate all possible valid solutions in practice (even after arithmetic simplification of expressions). I've already come up with a valid solution about half an hour before I passed all the tests but I was still failing a few test cases because the assertions did not take into account the commutativity (and associativity) of multiplication so I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out the order in which the multiplication of certain terms should be performed. Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed solving this Kata, keep up the good work :D

On another note, this Kata had a lot of assertions, some very straightforward and others a bit less straightforward; however, it would have been even better if expressions of the form f(x)^g(x) (in prefix notation, of course) were tested as well - such expressions aren't as frequently covered by typical high school math courses and would definitely get more people thinking ;)

Didn't see your message before, sorry. Could you show me an example, please? I'm not following.

Great! Thank you for the C++ translation !

C++ translation published

Thanks :D

The commutativity issue still persists. Either the description needs to be updated to specify the form of the result or all cases accepted.

"Just" the string message that wasn't updated with the actual value of the tets, sorry for this. ;)

Corrected.

Hi there I'm still failing on some random tests even tough the code should work. The proposed "correct" result can't be correct.

Example: diff (cos (* 52 x)) --> Expected: (* 3 (* 2 x)) or (* 6 x) which is incorrect

Edit: commutativity of multiplication is also still a problem

Edit2: Otherwise a really great Kata

I agree that the specification needs to be more explicit about what kind of simplifications are required minimally to pass the tests.

Thank you both.

there are sometimes "some" delays about solutions showing up correctly in the related page. It's a know "tiny bug" on CW. Generally, all get in order in a matter of a few minutes. These last few days, that was rather a matter of hours if not days (big bug).

I see your solution if I select Python and click Solutions.

Hi, any idea why my solution isn't showing up in the "Solutions" section, even though i completed it and can see my solution in "Past solutions" and in "Compare with my solution" ?!

Great Kata in theory IMO but it isn't easy to validate

allpossible valid solutions in practice (even after arithmetic simplification of expressions). I've already come up with a valid solution about half an hour before I passed all the tests but I was still failing a few test cases because the assertions did not take into account the commutativity (and associativity) of multiplication so I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out the order in which the multiplication of certain terms should be performed. Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed solving this Kata, keep up the good work :DOn another note, this Kata had a lot of assertions, some very straightforward and others a bit less straightforward; however, it would have been even better if expressions of the form

`f(x)^g(x)`

(in prefix notation, of course) were tested as well - such expressions aren't as frequently covered by typical high school math courses and would definitely get more people thinking ;)Confirmed.

should be good, check again, please

Random tests contain

`"sin (* {0} x))"`

missing the open parenthesis## Loading more items...