Bugs fixed in the checker program.

1. The total length of dangerous segments was not always correctly verified against the canonical answer. Most prominently, the following output was previously accepted for the sample input (test 1), which has the total dangerous length 1.0 with the optimal one being 0.8:

2
1.0 1.5
0.0 1.5

2. Precision issues were fixed that were causing solutions with certain output rounding strategies being rejected (most commonly, WA8).

The limitation on the number of pieces of furniture N was updated in the problem statements from N >= 0 to N >= 1 to reflect the actual test data.

Additionally, the time limit was reduced from 2.0 sec to 1.0 sec.

All solutions have been rejudged. 21 authors lost, and 2 other authors gained the Solved status for the problem.

I've got AC
My heap was so small...(Could anyone talls me why 400 is unenough?)

Edited by author 22.09.2021 17:55

Can the mouse go under the furniture? I mean, can it's way cross the polygons?

   Hi everybody,
   After a lot of testing I have wa21 ... Is there anything spacial about this test case ? Thanks in advance.

Edited by author 18.07.2009 22:28

Which is strange, since everything else is allowed in output.

-0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5
1
4
0 0
1 1
0 1
1 0

0 0 3 0
1
3
1 50
1 -50
2 0

Nevermind, I found my problem in the code.

Edited by author 24.04.2010 02:55

Any help?

1) print 0 instead of -0
2) print 7 digits after decimal point
3) One can use Dijkstra over shortest segments between two polys ( without having to check for any intersections at all ).

Is there anyone who can help me with test#13?

I have passed all tests made by myself..but still wa8.
(When my program was incorrect and with a lot of bugs..it began wa8... and now still...

I always get WA on 15
Can anyone tell me why

printing 4 or 5 or 6 fractional digits will all get wa on some test cases. but when i try to submit the programme with printing 7 fractional digits, i got ac......

Edited by author 03.09.2007 06:09

#input
0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
0
#output
3
0.0 0.0
1.0 0.0
2.0 0.0

This output is correct, isn't it?