Loading collection data...
Collections are a way for you to organize kata so that you can create your own training routines. Every collection you create is public and automatically sharable with other warriors. After you have added a few kata to a collection you and others can train on the kata contained within the collection.
Get started now by creating a new collection.
Good catch. Fixed.
I was able to pass the Attempt test suite in Rust without any issues. Please post your current solution, mark it as a spoiler and specify the input(s) causing your solution to fail so we may reproduce your issue and determine whether it is indeed a problem with the tests.
Closing the issue since there's insufficient evidence it's related to the Kata itself.
Thanks ;)
625 is a permutation of 256 and
144 < 256 <= 440
, so it's correct.Your own solution passes these if you increment the lower limit.
I suggest to activate these tests (kumite)
Fixed.
Thank you for reporting the bug - it's fixed!
I agree with you. Some times, the description is incomplete.
Fixed in latest fork
apologies for the late response, but it should be fixed and working properly.
Of course it was not. Has been fixed now. Though, I should have used a tuple...
The array INV contains the multiplicative inverses of the indices modulo 26 or 0 if the index is not invertible modulo 26.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Problem solved, no insist :)
I've found a standard way to represent (real) floating point values exactly — hex float literals. Can you go over this fork and see if it's satisfactory?
https://www.codewars.com/kumite/6512e3e65bf8500b9aa77a33?sel=6512e3e65bf8500b9aa77a33
As literal
f64
, the printed values are exactly the same as you've written them:See: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=34f506a69116464faf179681aed1ef33
I agree that printing more helpful values is a good idea, but your suggestion also doesn't really handle the full range well: it prints
-1.7976931348623155e308
as this instead:The current one shows the exact value as well, and is much less unwieldy, allowing easier visual inspection. ("Oh, my result is smaller but only by a little.")
Can you explain why you think your way of printing it is more useful? Maybe we can work something out.
Loading more items...