When solving Magicka, I worried about two issues: First, what if two elements combine to form a third and then in the new list, the last two elements can combine again? And second, what if two elements combine to form a third and then in the new list, there is an opposition? So I checked the wording carefully, and it seemed pretty clear that in the first case there could be a cascade of combinations, but in the second case, oppositions should only be checked once only, after checking the combinations. So I coded it that way. Anyhow, it worked and I moved on, but I just tested it again without cascades of combinations, and with checking for oppositions after a combination. And I still got both big and small correct in both cases.
I don't really have much of a comment on this except that maybe the designers missed, or deliberately avoided, a chance to penalize anyone who didn't think about these issues carefully. It just seems kinda cheap, that's all :-) Sam. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-codejam" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en.
