Retired
Player's Score Class (retired)
Loading description...
Games
View
This comment has been reported as {{ abuseKindText }}.
Show
This comment has been hidden. You can view it now .
This comment can not be viewed.
- |
- Reply
- Edit
- View Solution
- Expand 1 Reply Expand {{ comments?.length }} replies
- Collapse
- Spoiler
- Remove
- Remove comment & replies
- Report
{{ fetchSolutionsError }}
-
-
Your rendered github-flavored markdown will appear here.
-
Label this discussion...
-
No Label
Keep the comment unlabeled if none of the below applies.
-
Issue
Use the issue label when reporting problems with the kata.
Be sure to explain the problem clearly and include the steps to reproduce. -
Suggestion
Use the suggestion label if you have feedback on how this kata can be improved.
-
Question
Use the question label if you have questions and/or need help solving the kata.
Don't forget to mention the language you're using, and mark as having spoiler if you include your solution.
-
No Label
- Cancel
Commenting is not allowed on this discussion
You cannot view this solution
There is no solution to show
Please sign in or sign up to leave a comment.
When the increasing method is fed with a negative input, the score may become negative. This is not handled correctly by the reference solution, which only enforces the non-negativity constraint for the decreasing method.
Oh, this hint is really helpful! I think, it would be reasonable to throw exceptions when negative numbers are used.
Thank you very much! 👍
Can you explain why the kata is retired? I did my best in creating my first kata clean, after reading all the docs. What was my mistake?
It is probably due to the low satisfaction rate. Katas with low rating are automatically retired (I don't know exactly which are the conditions for retirement).
The low rating is the subjective appreciation of beta testers. The reason for the low rate is probably because the task was considered too basic to be interesting (there is already a number of katas implying basic OOP manipulations).
Okay, thank you for explanation!