Whats the difference with formatting the variable as f"{40-mm}" and converting it to a string performance wise

dont forget about me

Enabled in this fork

I think this kata should also have a tag of OOP in its description

C Translation (author inactive).

If you change tests in a way which makes existing solutions not pass anymore, then such solutions will be marked as obsolete. However, users who submitted them will not lose any points. It is generally OK to add tests and invalidate some solutions if tests are incorrect and do not conform to spec.

-- Java version of the kata --

The kata details state that inputs are not sorted. My tests have shown that at least one of the successfully submitted solutions is not correct.
This would be detected if a test was added for the following input (expected result: 3):
new int[][] {{10, 11}, {1, 8}, {6, 9}, {5, 7}})

I have a general question (sorry if it is not an appropriate forum, I am new here)

• Adding sort to existing solutions will make them correct, but also will affect performance, so some of them might no longer be viable... Would a new test somehow invalidate solutions that are already submitted?

Haskell translation

The description has been updated, adding a primer on generating random numbers, as it's a bit more advanced for Haskell than for other languages.

.

Wow, is a genius

Wow that is embarassing. Thank you for pointing out my error. I was certain that I had counted all 15 requests in my solution. I am ashamed of myself.

That is only 14 requests. I figured you'd be too focused on checking that they didn't overlap to notice that one was missing, but by distributing them manually you wouldn't lose one of them due to some oversight or bug in the code that you wouldn't manually reproduce since you'd be aware of every step carried out.

I appreciate your patience with my ignorance. I solved the above example by hand and came out with the exact same taxis as above:

taxi 1: (3, 10), (14, 22), (26, 30)
taxi 2: (8, 10), (16, 26), (27, 29)
taxi 3: (9, 18), (19, 20), (21, 30)
taxi 4: (16, 26), (29, 30)
taxi 5: (17, 25), (29, 30)
taxi 6: (19, 28)

How are these not "distributed" correctly?

Yes, but you didn't distribute the requests between the taxis. Yes, check it by hand. Better yet, solve it by hand so that you are actually checking that it's solvable rather than looking at the solution and failing to find a problem (which doesn't mean there isn't one)

I listed the six taxis above. The number of requests is small enough that it can be checked by hand, and while I may have missed something, I do not see any mistake. All 15 requests are satisfied with the six taxis that are show in my post.