Yep. I moved it back to draft.
I actually believe the more clear requirements defined as part of a solution than the easier because thats less assumptions I have to make and less things I have to worry about but I guess that's just up to an individual's personal preference. Anyway, I get ya point ;).

Ok, I'll work on the other one and we'll see about that. It appeared to me that the other kata contained rules that would allow the code to invalidate a solution sooner (i.e. in doing less work) but I'll do a comparison and let ya know. Thanks.

I don't know. I had checked out that kata before I tried to author my own and I really think that kata has some rules/constraints in it that make it a little bit different of a problem. Actually I think it's easier to solve due to some of it's constraints that this one doesn't impose.

Ok, let me check it out.

Ok, thanks. I think I get the idea of how to implement the random tests and I'll work on that next. Speeding up my solution might be a little more challenging as that's the reason I think this is a good kata. It should probably be a 4 kyu but I didn't want to scare off code warriors with that rating. So far my algorithm passess all the tests I've made within the timeout interval but as the list of words grew, it was starting to time out so I had to scale it down a little.

What exactly did you mean by "this "pseudo implementation" do not garantee that solutions will be unique, tho (even if it's probable)."? I would think that if I were to build the list of unique words and I were careful about the words generated, this would guarantee that no two solutions would exist for any one crossword problem. This might actually take more than just checking that the words were all unique so I'm open for ideas. Perhaps maybe making each word space size unique and doing some additional tricks with the lettering of the words might help (for the random tests)?

How would I go about implementing the random tests? Could use a little help on that one. lol

Good catch. I appreciate the review. Somehow I made a bunch of updates last night and couldn't get the code to re-publish so some of them were lost because when I tried to re-publish again this morning, I ommitted a few of the updates.

Got it. Thanks again for the insight.

1 letter words don't make much sense in a crossword puzzle as words typically itersect with other words to form solutions.
Thanks for the input. As this is my first authored kata I appreciate the feedback. I will work on fixing the kata. The design idea with the instance I can implement. Other then syntatically, how else would that make it better? Just curious. Thanks!

More test cases needed. I don't think my tests cover all the edge cases sufficiently. Looking for contributors.

I actually started off with this approach and then abandonded it for some odd reason. Guess I couldn't see the final result as actually being correct. Good job!

This Kata needs more riguorous TC's to test the offset functionality. Otherwise it was an OK, Kata.

Thanks!

This solution does not adhere to the Kata spec for the reset method. If the ByteStore is put into read mode on the first call to reset (i.e. write == false), this reset method will throw an IOException. This method will only work properly if reset is first called to enter write mode (i.e. write == true).

I can't believe how much difference something as simple as a smart algortihm makes to executing code. I loved this Kata, and so far the series for that fact has been very fun. This kata was easy, yet so fundamentally challenging for me to do. It made me dig deep back into my old algorithm notes. I am so grateful for you guys here at codewars for the challenges and the learning. Lets keep the good times rolling!