Thanks!

good that it didn't let you down after all

Also, I don't think I've seen a level 5 that doesn't require a loop.

It can be VERY hard to solve certain problems without a loop. In fact, some performance kata's require a O(1) solution, instead of O(n), so don't judge a kata's difficulty on its flavour for loops.

By the way, what exactly is needed to approve? I sometimes see the green bar "You have the ability to approve this kata. You simply need to edit the kata and set its rank. .... Edit/Approve Kata"

I see the average rank. But if I republish, it doesn't seem to have any effect. Do I have to edit the description in some way?

Thanks for approving.

Maybe I should explain why I originally posted the kata at rank 6.

The book only shows that one example, which is a simple calculation. So I was originally thinking rank 7. When I started extending it to other cases, I realized it was significantly harder. (I was only confident my solution was correct when it matched the results of simulation). But I'm not very good at geometry problems, so I wasn't sure how hard it was. Also, I don't think I've seen a level 5 that doesn't require a loop.

No insult to the problem was intended. :-)

Remember that you can always check votes using API link.

You approved at correct level. 6 would have been an insult to this problem.

I've fixed the ordered nature of coordinate pairs I believe. It should now be truly unordered (meaning it shouldn't care if you return, [[0, 0], [1, 1]] or [[1, 1,], [0, 0]]).

The function should return a set of tuples.

What I'm suggesting is that you should decide how the tests should behave and then implement whatever has that behaviour. You would for example need to consider what the failure message should look like, it's not great to show a list that is sorted differently from what the solver returned, so how would a human grading that reply answer? Make it say *that*.

I don't see why you'd intentionally use a less appropriate data type.

I completely blanked that Map is a built-in, oops. I'm not using tuples because IMO it feels a lot cleaner to use tuples, this is somewhat to emulate a more interview-y style set of annoyances. I could reconstruct with tuples though. I can also remove those typing imports then. With regards to comparing the order, the function is going to produce a list of pairs and I'll need to compare that against some reference list of pairs, are you suggesting that I can just sort the internal pairs as well? Something like

sorted([sorted(pair) for pair in pairs])

Just don't compare the order if you don't care about the order? Also use tuple for pairs ([((0, 2), (2, 2))])

you don't need the typing imports, list/tuple support those "operations" directly. list[list[list]] is also really strange as it doesn't specify the innermost element's type, and with tuple you additionally specify how many there are - it'll get quite lengthy though.

someone is going to complain sooner or later that you're shadowing the name map in the default code

Yeah I'm frankly not sure how to phrase it correctly, I tried many different methods of sorting but I think to get true unordered-ness you'd need to reconstruct the lists. If you have a suggestion for phrasing I can jam that into the description so that people don't have to fight with it. Thank you for playing.

Thank you very much! Your words are a huge motivation to me and I will certainly try to create more!!!

And I am really glad you enjoyed this kata!!