Is the signature in Rust/136 correct?
#6
by
ReuvenP
- opened
I am working on the Rust dataset experimentally, and chatGPT keep "failing" on Rust/136, claiming that the signature does not match the instructions.
The instructions say:
Write a Rust function `largest_smallest_integers(lst: Vec<i32>) -> Vec<i32>` to solve the following problem:
Create a function that returns a tuple (a, b), where 'a' is
the largest of negative integers, and 'b' is the smallest
of positive integers in a list.
If there is no negative or positive integers, *return them as None*
(my emphasis)
And the signature is
largest_smallest_integers(lst: Vec<i32>) -> Vec<i32>
The natural way to enable None in Rust is Optional, so the more natural signature is
largest_smallest_integers(lst: Vec<i32>) -> (Option<i32>, Option<i32>)
Can we consider changing that?
Interesting, is it only for the problem Rust/136?
Is the original one correct, too?
python/136 is reutrning a tuple and no type hints:
def largest_smallest_integers(lst):
'''
Create a function that returns a tuple (a, b), where 'a' is
the largest of negative integers, and 'b' is the smallest
of positive integers in a list.
If there is no negative or positive integers, return them as None.
Examples:
largest_smallest_integers([2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 7]) == (None, 1)
largest_smallest_integers([]) == (None, None)
largest_smallest_integers([0]) == (None, None)
'''
From CPP/136, requirement changed from None to 0:
Create a function that returns a vector (a, b), where \"a\" is
the largest of negative integers, and \"b\" is the smallest
of positive integers in a vector.
If there is no negative or positive integers, return them as 0.
Examples:
largest_smallest_integers({2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 7}) == {0, 1}
largest_smallest_integers({}) == {0,0}
largest_smallest_integers({0}) == {0,0}
go/136 seems fine too:
// Create a function that returns a tuple (a, b), where 'a' is
// // the largest of negative integers, and 'b' is the smallest
// // of positive integers in a list.
// // If there is no negative or positive integers, return them as nil.
// //
// // Examples:
// // LargestSmallestIntegers([2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 7]) == (nil, 1)
// // LargestSmallestIntegers([]) == (nil, nil)
// // LargestSmallestIntegers([0]) == (nil, nil)
// func LargestSmallestIntegers(lst []int) [2]interface{}{
Java/136 uses list of optional:
/**
Create a function that returns a tuple (a, b), where 'a' is
the largest of negative integers, and 'b' is the smallest
of positive integers in a list.
If there is no negative or positive integers, return them as None.
Examples:
largestSmallestIntegers(Arrays.asList(2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 7)) == (Optional.empty(), Optional.of(1))
largestSmallestIntegers(Arrays.asList()) == (Optional.empty(), Optional.empty())
largestSmallestIntegers(Arrays.asList(0)) == (Optional.empty(), Optional.empty())
*/
public List<Optional<Integer>> largestSmallestIntegers(List<Integer> lst){
JavaScript/136 uses tuple, and no type info:
/* Create a function that returns a tuple (a, b), where 'a' is
the largest of negative integers, and 'b' is the smallest
of positive integers in a list.
If there is no negative or positive integers, return them as null.
Examples:
largestSmallestIntegers([2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 7]) == (null, 1)
largestSmallestIntegers([]) == (null, null)
largestSmallestIntegers([0]) == (null, null)
*/
const largestSmallestIntegers = (lst) => {
Thanks! Some slight changes between them are expected; I guess if the Rust one is still solvable then it may be fine to leave it as is?