3 ms·

Thanks! - With the 'open' tests, encouraging experimentation was the intent. It definitely needs an interactive syntax check as others have suggested. - Each

by kranner 16y ago

Thanks! - With the 'open' tests, encouraging experimentation was the intent. It definitely needs an interactive syntax check as others have suggested. - Each test does produce a binary, which runs in a sandbox (or rather a few nested sandboxing mechanisms). Your suggestion is interesting but I don't think I fully understand it. For one it might restrict us to solutions expressible as strings, and the formatting requirements might make the task stricter.

chrislloyd 16y ago
I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. Give candidates the entire file and tell them how it will be run. Then it's trivial for them to develop on their local machine. I'm positive most of the failures you'll get are syntax related. Let people check their own! If you want to check their syntax for them, that is going to be a lot of work and make it harder to add new languages. Include the unit tests with what you give the candidate so you are not just limited to string output if you want, but you could give just them the formatter too. Keep up the good work though, it was actually quite fun doing a couple of the tests :)
- kranner 16y ago
  Thanks for the encouragement, it's very heartening!