Retired
Minesweeper board creator (retired)
Loading description...
Fundamentals
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.
Making
mine_locationsan optional parameter makes zero sense. If there're no mines, pass the empty list as the argument to the function yourself like any sane person would do (although having zero mines in Minesweeper doesn't make any sense either). As of now, it's not even documented what should be the default case.What does "valid" mean? Fail how?
Why does this requirements exist in the first place? Assuming we're supposed to check whether the given mine locations are actually on the board, it might make sense to perform such validation IRL, but it doesn't add any value to the task here.
It's not stated which of these represents the rows and which represents the columns.
No sample tests.
This comment has been hidden.