ENG  RUSTimus Online Judge
Online Judge
Задачи
Авторы
Соревнования
О системе
Часто задаваемые вопросы
Новости сайта
Форум
Ссылки
Архив задач
Отправить на проверку
Состояние проверки
Руководство
Регистрация
Исправить данные
Рейтинг авторов
Текущее соревнование
Расписание
Прошедшие соревнования
Правила
вернуться в форум

Обсуждение задачи 1027. Снова D++

(*)should be thought as 'YES'!
Послано bottles 14 фев 2008 10:36
why it is wrong?

"An arithmetic expression in D++ is always opened by "(", is closed by ")" and may contain any of the following symbols: "=+-*/0123456789)(""

arithmetic expression is opened by '(',may contain '*'and closed by ')'.so "(*)" can seen as a right  arithmetic expression.

anyone can answer me??
Re: (*)should be thought as 'YES'!
Послано Anisimov Dmitry 22 апр 2008 19:58
my AC'ed solution says that (*) is NOT a legal expression.
Either the test set does not have such things, or judges do not consider (*) to be an arithmetic expr
Re: (*)should be thought as 'YES'!
Послано Mansurov Artur 23 июл 2008 16:14
(*) is NOT valid!
Re: (*)should be thought as 'YES'!
Послано h1ci 18 июн 2009 19:35
An arithmetic expression can't start with a pair of symbols "(*"
Re: (*)should be thought as 'YES'!
Послано 2rf [Perm School #9] 16 фев 2010 13:47
In my opinion, (*) is valid COMMENTARY - it's opened by (* and closed by *) ; I think we need to add "and these two pairs of symbols should not intersect" to this phrase in statement - " A comment is always opened by a pair of symbols "(*" and is closed by a pair of symbols "*)" , otherwise (*) is YES for sure.

Edited by author 16.02.2010 13:52
Re: (*)should be thought as 'YES'!
Послано unlucky [Vologda SPU] 16 фев 2010 21:08
2rf [Perm School #9] писал(a) 16 февраля 2010 13:47
In my opinion, (*) is valid COMMENTARY - it's opened by (* and closed by *) ; I think we need to add "and these two pairs of symbols should not intersect" to this phrase in statement - " A comment is always opened by a pair of symbols "(*" and is closed by a pair of symbols "*)" , otherwise (*) is YES for sure.
You is very crazy man :)
I think, that you never write syntax analyzer for languages.
You "additional condition"  is obvious for all, that ever write syntax analyzers, but not for you. :)
This problem is about syntax analyzer , NOT working with any string and substrings.


Edited by author 16.02.2010 21:12