Talk:Two sum: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
i.e. Returning an empty list where no solutions are found, and a list of more than one integer pair where multiple solutions are found. |
i.e. Returning an empty list where no solutions are found, and a list of more than one integer pair where multiple solutions are found. |
||
The English formulation of the task may also need a slight tweak – the phrase "If so, return indices of '''the''' two integers" skips a bit heavily over the thin ice – it seems to express an assumption |
The English formulation of the task may also need a slight tweak – the phrase "If so, return indices of '''the''' two integers" skips a bit heavily over the thin ice – it seems to express an assumption that any solution would necessarily be unique. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 09:38, 17 October 2016
Some ambiguities (inappropriate return type)
What if there is more then one way to get the desired sum? Should it return all of the pairs or only a pair? Are we to assume the integers in the array are unique? --Thundergnat (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
What if there is no solution ? E.g. when all numbers in the list are even, and the desired sum is odd. -- Hajo (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
One way of putting it is that the proposed return type (list of integers [Int]) is not quite right yet. The structure of the problem would be more clearly expressed by requiring the return of a list of pairs of integers
[(Int, Int)]
i.e. Returning an empty list where no solutions are found, and a list of more than one integer pair where multiple solutions are found.
The English formulation of the task may also need a slight tweak – the phrase "If so, return indices of the two integers" skips a bit heavily over the thin ice – it seems to express an assumption that any solution would necessarily be unique. Hout (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)