David Verrelli

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1721380

Neat solution using some additional mathematical knowledge.

on 30 Nov 2019 at 12:33

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Problem 44819. Relative pose in 2D: problem 1

The %% is an issue because it is so poorly documented and hence poorly understood (or even not understood). The following seems to be how it works. [Note: in the following I will use "↲" to indicate the end of a line in the code/output.] ~~~~~~~~~~ Creator writes this TEST SUITE: ~~~~~~~~~~ ----- commandA↲ commandB↲ ↲ %% test 1↲ commandX↲ ↲ %% test 2↲ commandY↲ ----- ~~~~~~~~~~ Cody RUNS the following tests: ~~~~~~~~~~ Test 1: (i) commandA; (ii) commandB; and (iii) commandX. Test 2: (i) commandA; (ii) commandB; and (iii) commandY. ~~~~~~~~~~ Cody DISPLAYS the following output: ~~~~~~~~~~ ----- %%commandA↲ commandB↲ ↲ %% test 1↲ commandX↲ ↲ [output from commandX only]↲ ↲ %% test 2↲ commandY↲ ↲ [output from commandY only]↲ ↲ ----- ~~~~~~~~~~ Notice: (i) any commands before the first %% [namely commandA and command] are run at the beginning of every test; (ii) output of any commands before the first %% is suppressed [never displayed]; (iii) for the player, a spurious "%%" is displayed on the first line of the Test Suite if there were any commands before the first "%%". It is actually a very clever structure for Problem Creators writing a Test Suite. Therefore I'd be keen to retain it. See e.g. https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/cody/problems/44655 The annoyances are: (i) lack of documentation; (ii) suppression of output; and (iii) insertion of a spurious "%%" in the display. Although none of these three issues affect the running, they cause a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

on 23 Nov 2019 at 2:24

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1349348

Nice one :-)

on 3 Jul 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1633120

William's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 25 September 2018. Wall time for 1080 message batches = 7.30 s. (CPU time = 9.21 seconds.)

on 3 Jul 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 556220

I agree that it is possible to choose N in such a way as to be practically guaranteed to pass the Test Suite. My point is that in this submission (and BTW also in Solution 188645) N has been chosen smaller than that, and so some luck was needed for this submission to pass — there was a significant risk that it could have failed.

on 27 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Problem 43546. Slope of the line passing through two points

Thanks to goc3 for improving the Test Suite and fixing the other issues. Those people interested in developing their own test suites might like to try the series of problems starting with https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/cody/problems/44631

on 27 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1297083

Fair point.

on 27 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1671361

If you describe a problem as simple, William, you'll invite close inspection.... Maybe you'll find a benefit in commenting the code in your next submission.

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1706081

HH, you get no credit for hacking the problem. Only legitimate solutions gain credit.

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1669300

Oleksandr Denysenko, you get no credit for hacking the problem. Only legitimate solutions gain credit.

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1584952

Good job on commenting your code!

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1576522

An elegant solution.

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted Solution 1856296 to Problem 44695. What score did they give?

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1793400

An elegantly simple solution.

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1562733

David Verrelli's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 18 June 2018. Wall time for 1001 message batches = 7.05 s. (CPU time = 9.01 seconds.)

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1633126

William's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 25 September 2018. Wall time for 1080 message batches = 7.17 s. (CPU time = 9.01 seconds.)

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1562637

Binbin Qi's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 17 June 2018. Wall time for 1001 message batches = 3.81 s. (CPU time = 4.73 seconds.)

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1582734

Jean-Marie Sainthillier's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 13 July 2018. Wall time for 1021 message batches = 6.77 s. (CPU time = 7.09 seconds.)

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1555446

J. S. Kowontan's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 17 June 2018. Wall time for 1001 message batches = 3.36 s. (CPU time = 4.06 seconds.)

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1719711

Alfonso Nieto-Castanon's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 03 February 2019. Wall time for 1193 message batches = 6.14 s. (CPU time = 8.24 seconds.)

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1704741

Mu's solution passed all tests in the Test Suite on 08 January 2019. Wall time for 1170 message batches = 4.26 s. (CPU time = 6.25 seconds.)

on 24 Jun 2019

David Verrelli submitted Solution 1673515 to Problem 43663. Combine the first and last names

on 14 Nov 2018

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 1630421

Hello, William. I like very much the originality & especially the efficiency of your approach here. Am I correct in thinking that the existing code would struggle to correctly decode a message that was encoded from (say) "Beware of the Sasquatch Man's involvement in Operation Phoenix"? [I don't want to explain this, to avoid giving too many clues to others. But I hope you get my point.] Although I am confident you could tweak your code (if necessary) to handle such cases. —DIV

on 21 Sep 2018

David Verrelli liked Solution 1630421

on 21 Sep 2018

David Verrelli submitted a Comment to Solution 998814