| Title |
User |
Message |
Date Posted |
| Re: Are you positive that it is doable with Python 3 (again)? |
Ajna |
Oh, I see, thanks. I see that I can, I mean, but of course I can't see his solution, not having solved it myself. |
Dec 25, 2014 - 11:56:32 am UTC |
| Re: Are you positive that it is doable with Python 3 (again)? |
jargon |
You can view all solutions by a given user by going to their profile and clicking on the (15 / 15) on their profile. Here's a direct link to quantum's 100/100 Py3 solution. |
Dec 24, 2014 - 6:32:56 am UTC |
| Re: Are you positive that it is doable with Python 3 (again)? |
Ajna |
Oh, you did 100/100 on Python in the time limit, quantum? But I don't see your solution, possibly because the system only keeps the best time per user and you submitted with another more performing la... |
Dec 22, 2014 - 8:42:05 pm UTC |
| Re: Are you positive that it is doable with Python 3 (again)? |
quantum |
Proven possible. |
Dec 21, 2014 - 4:54:43 pm UTC |
| Re: Are you positive that it is doable with Python 3 (again)? |
FatalEagle |
To be honest, I have not tested this problem with Python 3, so it might be impossible. But the intended algorithm in Python 2 should be able to get at least 85/100. |
Dec 21, 2014 - 3:49:32 pm UTC |
| Are you positive that it is doable with Python 3 (again)? |
Ajna |
I have an idea that could make my algo save some time, but before working for implementing it and seeing how much it does take to run the second part of the tests, I would like to know if there is som... |
Dec 21, 2014 - 12:54:21 pm UTC |
