6 kyu
Autodigigrams – Part 1
47 of 86jcsahnwaldt
Loading description...
Algorithms
Arrays
.avif)
This comment has been reported as {{ abuseKindText }}.
Show
This comment has been hidden. You can view it now .
This comment can not be viewed.
- |
- Reply
- Edit
- View Solution
- Expand 1 Reply Expand {{ comments?.length }} replies
- Collapse
- Spoiler
- Remove
- Remove comment & replies
- Report
{{ fetchSolutionsError }}
-
-
Your rendered github-flavored markdown will appear here.
-
Label this discussion...
-
No Label
Keep the comment unlabeled if none of the below applies.
-
Issue
Use the issue label when reporting problems with the kata.
Be sure to explain the problem clearly and include the steps to reproduce. -
Suggestion
Use the suggestion label if you have feedback on how this kata can be improved.
-
Question
Use the question label if you have questions and/or need help solving the kata.
Don't forget to mention the language you're using, and mark as having spoiler if you include your solution.
-
No Label
- Cancel
Commenting is not allowed on this discussion
You cannot view this solution
There is no solution to show
Please sign in or sign up to leave a comment.
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
I rewrote the Java and Python tests. Your solutions demonstrating the problem have been invalidated. Thanks!
Python Translation
Thanks a lot! Good stuff. Approved.
Very nice problem! (Took me much longer than it should have. Tried to make streams work for a while. Eventually went back to basics, and kludged it together.)
Autodigipangram?
If I understand correctly, you marked this comment as a suggestion, but I don't understand what you're suggesting. :-)
Only seven of the ca. 500 lists in my test cases are digipangrams. I bet there are a few more, but I guess at most twice as many. I could have specified that
validateshould only accept autodigipangrams, but implementing the additional criterion wouldn't be interesting (simply check that there are no zeros in the input), and it would drastically reduce the number of test cases.Even if there's zeroes in there, one could argue they're pangrams, because they define the number of occurrences for every possible digit. ( Digits don't have to actually occur, because they are not named but encoded by position. )
I was not suggesting changing the criteria.
I guess it's resolved. :-)
Haskell initial solution is missing type signature
Thanks! Fixed.