Native speaker of English (not Italian :))

Ah, that unexpected language (native speaker?); worry not, we all make mistakes (I do plenty) and being able to admit them is certainly a solider base than trying to never err :)

Che stupido sono io...Please disregard my post. Jeez what an idiot I can be sometimes. Sorry Giacomo...

"Distressing" or even "assaulted", plenty of uppercase, not admitting you might be wrong...

I would take a wild guess and assume you might not be too far from a uni, possibly an anglosaxon one.

Not sure about your language, but the initial signature is always 3 elements, so, unless you modify it, think again at what might happen.

I agree with an earlier poster. If you have cases where signature is somthing like [1,1], it is FALSE to claim that "signature is guaranteed to have at least 3 numbers." If you ask me to choose between believing that "guarantee" and my own lying eyes regarding the case of [1,1], I'm going to believe my own lying eyes and assert that [1, 1] has (at most!) two numbers. PLEASE accurately describe the rules on the input.

But this has nothing to do with "it is GUARANTEED that the signature contains 3 values". It's distressing and unfair that the solver, counting on this guarantee, is assaulted with INCORRECT results because some of thie inputs DO NOT HAVE 3 values.

Same result for me as for pindio58

There's just a typo in the unreachable cases sample test where start = (0,0), dest = (7, 7), and obstacles are the squares one knight's move away from dest. It shouldn't be calling func(s, e, o) -- it should be calling attack(s, e, o).

I used BigInteger instead of BigDecimal. DOH! But it worked! "I could have done it in a much more complicated way."