Luke, I'm glad you brought up what we were all thinking.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:53 PM Luke Pebody wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree with bringing back that feature. Otherwise if a
> contestant had written a solution in an outrageous choice of programming
> language, then
I wholeheartedly agree with bringing back that feature. Otherwise if a
contestant had written a solution in an outrageous choice of programming
language, then written a python interpreter for that language, found it too
slow and so written a C++ interpreter instead, what way would there be for
That's a good point about not being able to test your new solution on the
same input that you know you got right, Dmitriy. A few other thoughts:
- I don't know whether the UI makes this clear -- note to team, hopefully
there's a really clear indication that you still have points from previous
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:14:57 PM UTC+5:30, meir wrote:
> I seem unable to find a way to look up another player in the scoreboard.
> I used to do this, to track both real life friends and other notable
> competitors I become aware of.
> Is this feature missing from current incarnation?
You are not checking for "WRONG_ANSWER" condition
--
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
so are only standard libraries supported?
--
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group,
#include
using namespace std;
int main()
{int t ;
cin>>t;
for(int i=0;i>a>>b;
cin>>n;
for(int j=0;j>x;
if(x>b) cout<<"TOO_BIG"<
Bartholomew: there is another concern. Let's imagine that I've solved the
Visible dataset, and I know for sure that this doesn't solve the Hidden one. I
submit the solution, I get the positive verdict, and I start the better
implementation. In the old platform I can always compare the results
For me the issue is whether we're looking at something closer to 1e7 or 1e9
operations per second, which has a pretty significant impact on what
algorithms can work to solve a problem.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:13 PM wrote:
> Actually you can figure out for yourself
Actually you can figure out for yourself without running the code if a idea
will got TLE or not. It is normally if you know the complexity of your solution
and compare it to problem restriction. For example, it is obviously that O(T *
n^2) will got TLE in Trouble sort problem, because the size
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 2:29:36 AM UTC+8, newbie007 wrote:
> Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple and with
> no tricks.
>
> I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was fine.
>
> But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
One strength of the old contest format was that it's very easy for you to keep
the judge system up and running after the contest - it just needed to provide
small and large inputs and check that the uploaded solutions match the correct
answers.
What will you do in this new contest format? Do
12 matches
Mail list logo