gigasquid / wonderland-clojure-katas

Clojure Katas inspired by Alice in Wonderland

wonderland-clojure-katas

These are a collection of Clojure katas inspired by Lewis Carroll and Alice in Wonderland.

“Curiouser and curiouser!” -- ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

How to Do the Katas

First, clone or fork this repo. Each of the katas are in their own directory and are self contained Clojure projects. You cd into the project and run clj -X:test to show the failing tests, then complete the code to make the tests pass. Each project has the instructions in its own README.md file.

For example, to get started on the alphabet-cipher kata first.

1. Clone or Fork this repo
2. cd alphabet-cipher
3. run clj -X:test
4. Check out the alphabet cipher instructions in the README.md.
5. Add the code in the source files to make the tests pass.

License

Copyright © 2014 Carin Meier

Distributed under the Eclipse Public License either version 1.0 or (at your option) any later version.

wonderland-clojure-katas's Issues

The rules of war are wrong

In the game, if you have a tie, you don't resolve based on suit.

You deal three more cards from each hand and then 1 more that fights the war again. All cards go to the winner. If there is another tie, 3 more cards and fight again.

The main issue with the current rules is whomever receives the Ace of Hearts wins the game, as they can never lose the game as they can never run out of cards (nothing evers beats the ace of hearts)

Doublets

Hi again, @gigasquid, and thanks for the quick fix of the alphabet cipher. 😃 I have encountered a few similarly small issues with the Doublets challenge which I'll try to explain here.

Vector of strings vs. string of words

Here's some output from my terminal to illuminate the problem:

expected: (= ["head" "heal" "teal" "tell" "tall" "tail"] (doublets "head" "tail"))

expected: (= ["door boor book look lock"] (doublets "door" "lock"))

The first one expects a vector of single-word strings while the second one (and a few more) expect a vector of one string containing several words. I imagine the first one is the intended one, but as long as they agree on the format it should be fine.

Missing words

When I run the tests (after making changes like the one I described above) I'm unable to make some of the connections made in the test cases. It seems the word list is simply missing some words:

expected: (= ["head" "heal" "teal" "tell" "tall" "tail"] (doublets "head" "tail"))
  actual: (not (= ["head" "heal" "teal" "tell" "tall" "tail"] ("head" "heal" "teal" "tell" ... "tail")))

expected: (= ["door" "boor" "book" "look" "lock"] (doublets "door" "lock"))
  actual: (not (= ["door" "boor" "book" "look" "lock"] ("door" "boor" ... "lock")))

My code's inserting '... when it fails to find a matching and, indeed, I can't seem to find tall or book in the word list.

Problem with fox-goose-bag-of-corn.puzzle?

My implementation seems to be finding another solution that is seemingly valid and of the same length. I'm sure there are other solutions as well. I think the tests should be rewritten to accept more than just the hardcoded solution.

[[#{:you :fox :goose :corn} #{:boat} #{}]
[#{:fox :corn} #{:you :boat :goose} #{}]
[#{:fox :corn} #{:boat} #{:you :goose}]
[#{:fox :corn} #{:you :boat} #{:goose}]
[#{:you :fox :corn} #{:boat} #{:goose}]
[#{:corn} #{:you :fox :boat} #{:goose}]
[#{:corn} #{:boat} #{:you :fox :goose}]
[#{:corn} #{:you :boat :goose} #{:fox}]
[#{:you :goose :corn} #{:boat} #{:fox}]
[#{:goose} #{:you :boat :corn} #{:fox}]
[#{:goose} #{:boat} #{:you :fox :corn}]
[#{:goose} #{:you :boat} #{:fox :corn}]
[#{:you :goose} #{:boat} #{:fox :corn}]
[#{} #{:you :boat :goose} #{:fox :corn}]
[#{} #{:boat} #{:you :fox :goose :corn}]]

Alphabet cipher

Hi, @gigasquid, and thanks for the cool project.

When encoding meetmebythetree under key scones, shouldn't the encoding be egsgqwtahuiljgs--that is, the sequence shifted one further? Every time I do it by either hand or computation this is what I end up with. If this is in fact an off-by-one error it's present for the decryption test as well.

Bump all clojure versions in project.clj

There are all currently 1.6

Rules for tie in round (card-war-game)

Hello,

I just wanted to check if I should take in consideration the suits in consideration when there is a tie considering the ranks.

Both the war games rules and the example scenario state that we should not consider the suits. However, there are some tests that expect that the round results should consider the suits.

If we should not take the suits into account, I believe some of the tests need to be rewritten (I can submit a PR with changes).

Thanks!

Update to clojure 1.9

Migrate to Clojure CLI and Latest Version of Clojure

Motivation

These katas are designed as a learning resource for Clojure and should align with the latest recommended way of getting started with Clojure.

https://clojure.org/guides/getting_started