Newest at the top
| 2026-02-25 00:37:02 +0100 | <int-e> | (but then you'd have to accumulate a full result before printing anything) |
| 2026-02-25 00:36:15 +0100 | emmanuelux | (~em@user/emmanuelux) emmanuelux |
| 2026-02-25 00:36:05 +0100 | <int-e> | mauke: Yeah that looks like the best solution. Kind of sad; the simple greedy algorithm for the knapsack problem would work here. |
| 2026-02-25 00:35:05 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-02-25 00:34:09 +0100 | emmanuelux | (~em@user/emmanuelux) (Quit: bye) |
| 2026-02-25 00:33:54 +0100 | acidsys | (~crameleon@openSUSE/member/crameleon) crameleon |
| 2026-02-25 00:33:39 +0100 | acidsys | (~crameleon@openSUSE/member/crameleon) (Server closed connection) |
| 2026-02-25 00:33:05 +0100 | Comstar | (~Comstar@user/Comstar) Comstar |
| 2026-02-25 00:32:16 +0100 | <lantti> | should I use _ -> as the catch all case then? I'm not working with haskell all that much as one may notice |
| 2026-02-25 00:30:47 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-25 00:29:25 +0100 | <lantti> | (which I can recommend to anyone with children in the 1-3 primary school or earlier) |
| 2026-02-25 00:26:53 +0100 | <lantti> | (and the term "step squad" comes from the BBC childrens series called Numberblocks) |
| 2026-02-25 00:25:38 +0100 | <lantti> | (the previous version used length on the generated lists) |
| 2026-02-25 00:25:00 +0100 | <lantti> | but looking at my code now I do admit that there are some decisions that only make sense if you consider that they were the smallest change to the previous version, like the decision to include the lengths of the sets in the same list as the sets themselves |
| 2026-02-25 00:23:50 +0100 | saolsen | (sid26430@id-26430.lymington.irccloud.com) saolsen |
| 2026-02-25 00:23:39 +0100 | saolsen | (sid26430@id-26430.lymington.irccloud.com) (Server closed connection) |
| 2026-02-25 00:22:21 +0100 | <lantti> | guards, even |
| 2026-02-25 00:21:44 +0100 | <lantti> | mauke: is it not meant to be used like that? is it only for gurads then? |
| 2026-02-25 00:21:11 +0100 | snek | (sid280155@id-280155.lymington.irccloud.com) snek |
| 2026-02-25 00:20:59 +0100 | snek | (sid280155@id-280155.lymington.irccloud.com) (Server closed connection) |
| 2026-02-25 00:19:45 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-02-25 00:19:15 +0100 | <mauke> | lantti: I suggest changing "otherwise" to "print" for even more confusion |
| 2026-02-25 00:15:24 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-25 00:10:50 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> When removing it so i can submit with fewer deps |
| 2026-02-25 00:10:36 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I was using a library which wraps reads with Maybe and forgot to adjust the type... |
| 2026-02-25 00:10:11 +0100 | emmanuelux | (~em@user/emmanuelux) emmanuelux |
| 2026-02-25 00:07:59 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> My solution fails locally at readLn? I am confused. |
| 2026-02-25 00:07:49 +0100 | <lantti> | mine was https://privatebin.net/?97447d6805a0ea49#CfnZntNYLfYtSvpCod6DSKRYS8xDhzqycvhjmKNhppjv |
| 2026-02-25 00:04:20 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-02-25 00:00:02 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-24 23:57:40 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | *yes I do because |
| 2026-02-24 23:56:18 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | yes, because there's also sqrt |
| 2026-02-24 23:56:05 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> There is div from Integral, no need for double cast for /2 |
| 2026-02-24 23:54:57 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | overengineered spoilers: https://cses.fi/paste/b23bf94c9440505af9ce60/ (if we're sharing anyway...) |
| 2026-02-24 23:53:22 +0100 | <mauke> | spoilers: https://cses.fi/paste/7167882c695ce46ff9ce6b/ |
| 2026-02-24 23:52:26 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | *took |
| 2026-02-24 23:52:11 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | stdout handling is slow, told you |
| 2026-02-24 23:51:52 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | mauke: I tool the liberty to submit your solution to the judge; it takes 0.59s |
| 2026-02-24 23:50:42 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I am debating whether i want to put it in an automatic solver |
| 2026-02-24 23:50:41 +0100 | <mauke> | my solution doesn't use lists :-) |
| 2026-02-24 23:49:28 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | mine is overengineered, I used a sqrt |
| 2026-02-24 23:49:17 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | that sounds like mauke's solution (exchanged ideas in private chat) |
| 2026-02-24 23:48:57 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-02-24 23:48:52 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I now have a formal proof by induction with step 4 |
| 2026-02-24 23:47:36 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | this is all <0.001s on my machine lol |
| 2026-02-24 23:47:21 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | so that's 0.02s for the computation, 0.14s for the serialisation, and 0.05s for the printing |
| 2026-02-24 23:47:01 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and if I do `evaluate . length . unwords . map show` instead, I get 0.16s |
| 2026-02-24 23:46:49 +0100 | <lantti> | ah, so there it is :) |
| 2026-02-24 23:46:41 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2026-02-24 23:46:14 +0100 | <lantti> | ah, ok, I got it to 0.21s too by eliminating two calls to length and one to delete |