done :)

oh! yes, the 1st form was a class, then i switched to a method. I fix that, thx

Noted, Thank you for the feedback. You may check now if it works. Get back to me if it doesn't.

awesome, thanks for the help!

by Jove, I think I got it this time

apologies, for some reason it did not save.

I'll be bach.

I have made an adjustment to the code which should fix this problem.

Much appreciated if you are able to check to confirm.

ready

good

Fixed in this fork

Ruby refsol is calling user solution to get the result (instead of recursing)

My bad, the description will be altered soon

I forked it rather than attempting to explain where I want to go

Iterates the outermost list and the LoS-pairs, thus ignores anything else about the type. The coordinates have to be tuple. Order is ignored.

Obviously adjust/edit further to your liking. I think that error output is nice, maybe you don't.

I also fixed the type signature for the initial code which was incorrect (it was describing a size-1 tuple), and changed the default return value from None to [] to match the signature.

I did mention that the signature is a bit lengthy xD
I also added an error output to show expected structure when the answer is ill formed because I suspect most people will gloss over the signature so seeing the correct structure there, even though the description already does that, might help someone.

It might be overengineered. But uhm. If I want it to behave a certain way.. >_>

Accessing an old, cached version is not something what could happen, and it's not somethign what happens.

If I can read tests correctly, the problem is in how tests handle tuples vs. lists in a quirky way. The sort function tries to normalize actual to always use tuples, but there is one fixed test case when sort is not called.

If you know what test case makes you fail and you want to work around the faulty assertion, you can just hardcode this particular input in your solution.

Okay I believe I've fixed this, technically it supports either pairs being [tuple, tuple] or (tuple, tuple) but I'm not sure I care anymore. I could add a typecheck but I'd rather just allow both I guess.