You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I started cs50x in 2021, and the speller check50 gave me all green smiles despite the fact that (as I have just discovered after comparing it with speller50 before resubmission) the results are extremely far apart in correctness.
comparing it with speller50 in lalaland.txt, the correct answer showed 955, while my old solution registered 10887, despite that, the latest check50 still registers the answer as correct.
I believe I have located the mistake in my old code to be in the load function, specifically on the line table[h]->next = NULL; which was removing a lot of words from the loaded dictionary
I don't know exactly which parts of my dictionary.c are used for check50, and it seems said mistake only passed through because of the djb2 hash function used in that submission, as changing said function (since the newer version no longer allows you to use an existing hash function) and I am unsure if the check would pass with other hash functions, but I think it might be good to look into it
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I started cs50x in 2021, and the speller check50 gave me all green smiles despite the fact that (as I have just discovered after comparing it with speller50 before resubmission) the results are extremely far apart in correctness.
comparing it with speller50 in lalaland.txt, the correct answer showed 955, while my old solution registered 10887, despite that, the latest check50 still registers the answer as correct.
I believe I have located the mistake in my old code to be in the load function, specifically on the line
table[h]->next = NULL;
which was removing a lot of words from the loaded dictionaryI don't know exactly which parts of my dictionary.c are used for check50, and it seems said mistake only passed through because of the djb2 hash function used in that submission, as changing said function (since the newer version no longer allows you to use an existing hash function) and I am unsure if the check would pass with other hash functions, but I think it might be good to look into it
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: