> There is absolutely no valid justification for that, considering that this is > for *practice* (they even explain how to solve the problems!)
Telling you how to solve a problem is different from verifying that you have a correct implementation. The judging system is supposed to be working like a black box test. If your solution failed to pass the black box test, then you should figure out the inconsistency between your implementation and the official solution. Keep in mind that you can always come up with your own test data. You just need a random test case generator and a naive but correct solution. If you have access to the data set that your implementation will fail, you are likely just fixing the symptom, not the root cause, and continue to fail on some next data set. (unless it is just a small mistake, which you can probably figure it out on your own using some simple data set) Also, there are plenty of online judging systems that don't reveal their data set (in practice mode too), so I believe there is indeed some valid justification. Meanwhile, I agree that more complicated and non-trivial test case can be provided as the sample input/output in practice mode (not the full one used in a black box test though). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Code Jam" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/83e88344-54b6-4658-af9b-eed59b5ccc75%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
