Re: [gcj] What is the point of giving penalties for C++ compile errors?

Yes! Thank you for the correction. On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:50 AM Xiongqi ZHANG wrote: > did you meant > > > 2. Your solution for **invisible** set has to also work for the > **visible** set? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [gcj] What is the point of giving penalties for C++ compile errors?

did you meant > 2. Your solution for **invisible** set has to also work for the **visible** > set? -- 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

Re: [gcj] What is the point of giving penalties for C++ compile errors?

> > Before the format change, we could solve the two sets separately. > You can now, too. The differences are: 1. +4 minute penalty. 2. Your solution for the Visible set has to also work for the Invisible set. 3. You no longer have a correct Small output to play with. 4. If you realize later in

Re: [gcj] Practicing on old problems

Ok, looking forward to the practice session then. Thanks, keep up the good work! On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:18 PM 'Pablo Heiber' via Google Code Jam < google-code@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Hi, > > >> Hello, and thank you for your effort in revamping the Code Jam judge >> system! But is there

Re: [gcj] How to test practice solution to problem in past contest?

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-5, Pablo Heiber wrote: > Hi, > > > We haven't been able to enable practice in the new platform yet, but we are > working to make it available soon. Please stay tuned. > > > We are also running an open week-long practice session feature the problems

Re: [gcj] 2018 1A Edgy Baking problem analysis

Joseph, That's not the DP approach. That's the smarter-than-DP approach as described in the analysis page. On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:31 Joseph DeVincentis wrote: > As I solved this problem, I noted that the range of dimensions for the > cookies was limited to 1 to 250. This

Re: [gcj] What is the point of giving penalties for C++ compile errors?

+1 I think more issues about the new format have already been raised. I also don't appreciate the fact that we now we have to submit solution for both small and large constraints at the same time. Before the format change, we could solve the two sets separately. Have I missed the rationale