On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:27:28PM -0400, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> The only thing I found confusing (not ambiguous) about the
> rules is that they defined paragraphs even though paragraphs
> had no effect and no test cases had more than one paragraph.
I composed an e-mail to the referees at some point, when I had written a
solution that passed the test cases but failed on the input "\n \n". But then
I re-read the part about paragraphs ("The input will consist of zero or more
paragraphs. Blank lines can occur anywhere in the input outside of
paragraphs."). I decided not to send my message to the refs because I
interpreted the rule to mean that "\n \n" was illegal input, since it contained
a non-blank line outside a paragraph. I probably should have sent my message
anyway, just to ask for clarification. But I agree, it was a bit confusing
(I'm still not -certain- that "\n \n" is illegal input).
-- Mike
--
Michael W. Thelen
eval unpack u,'M*"1C/2<P,BDN-"`U+C`A(RLG*3U^>2\A+48O82UZ+SME=F%L*"1C+B(G=2HG
M+"<Z,D<U4SU<(B%!.T9=5#HF-5(H)2%%/$907$`Z)B5#.E8U4BM@2&`G+EPD$+R(I.P``'
