Not bad kata. Imho would suggest removing superfluous elements from description to increase clarity and make it more about solving the kata than reading a story.
Also would suggest either telling warriors to use whole numbers rather than incrementing anything by fractions like 1/2 or 1/3rd. I was getting errors when I didn't use whole numbers for my math even though it was the same math as when I used fractions.
especially convoluted about the first rule to break ties (why not to say the... "obvious", to make the things clearer?)
examples at the end have to be given in code blocks, to make clear what the separators are, when there are ties (=> ", ")
the description is actually wrongly worded about the final point of tie breaking:
first sub-point clearly tells the ties stands, but doesn't say to actually add "(ties)" at the end of the string (the info must be given there, not after)
second subpoint is clearly wrong, because it suggest the tie has to be broken while it actually isn't, on the coding/user side: it's only about adding another suffix to the string. This had to be rewritten properly.
Is there a reason this isn't being tested within some tolerance? I've solved this on Python without issue, except that for ~1-5 random test cases I'm off by 1/1000 which makes the rounding break the other direction(e.g. 0.444 => 0.44 vs 0.445 => 0.45).
Not bad kata. Imho would suggest removing superfluous elements from description to increase clarity and make it more about solving the kata than reading a story.
Also would suggest either telling warriors to use whole numbers rather than incrementing anything by fractions like 1/2 or 1/3rd. I was getting errors when I didn't use whole numbers for my math even though it was the same math as when I used fractions.
Common Lisp translation, please approve / reject.
All languages should use floating point comparison
the description is far from good...:
", "
)"(ties)"
at the end of the string (the info must be given there, not after)JS:
chai.assert.deepEqual
, not assertSimilarpython:
Is there a reason this isn't being tested within some tolerance? I've solved this on Python without issue, except that for ~1-5 random test cases I'm off by 1/1000 which makes the rounding break the other direction(e.g. 0.444 => 0.44 vs 0.445 => 0.45).
Considering this is an 8-kyu challenge with no obvious solution, it should utilize the V2 test suite's approximation.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Need example tests to show what's going on :)