The base version isn't too bad once you figure out the suffix length math.
Start by clarifying the problem constraints, especially the circular dependency between the number of parts and the suffix width. Then propose an iterative approach: estimate the number of parts, compute the suffix width, and adjust until convergence. Finally, discuss how to split the message while ensuring each part plus its suffix fits within the limit.
Pro tip: Mention that the number of parts can be found by iterating until the suffix width stabilizes, and handle edge cases like when the limit is too small to fit even a single character with the suffix.
Ask about edge cases: what if the limit is smaller than the suffix length? Should we truncate or error? Also confirm if parts must be contiguous and non-empty.
Since the suffix width depends on the total number of parts, use an iterative method: start with an estimate, compute suffix width, recalculate parts, and repeat until stable.
For each part, subtract the suffix length from the limit to get the maximum message characters that can be included.
Iterate through the message, taking chunks of the available width, and append the appropriate suffix to each chunk.
Check if the limit is too small (e.g., less than suffix length plus 1), and ensure the last part may be shorter. Validate that all parts fit and the message is fully covered.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.
Model the process as a loop: repeatedly scan the board for horizontal and vertical runs of 3+ identical candies, mark them for removal, clear them, and apply gravity to each column. Continue until a full pass produces no removals, then return the stabilized board. Focus on correctness and clarity first, then discuss optimizations like using a queue of affected positions.
Pro tip: Clarify edge cases upfront (e.g., empty board, no matches, cascading matches) and mention that you can optimize by only rechecking rows/columns affected by gravity, which shows you think about efficiency beyond the naive approach.
Confirm board dimensions, candy types, and that runs of exactly 3 or more are removed. Ask about empty boards, boards with no matches, and whether gravity applies simultaneously after all removals.
Explain how to scan each row for horizontal runs and each column for vertical runs, marking cells that are part of any run of length >= 3. Use a boolean matrix or set to record positions to remove.
For each column, shift remaining candies downward to fill empty spaces, preserving their relative order. This can be done by collecting non-empty cells from bottom to top and rewriting the column.
Repeat detection, removal, and gravity in a loop. Break when a full pass finds no removable runs. Return the board.
Discuss time complexity (e.g., O(m*n) per pass, up to O(m*n*max(m,n)) worst-case) and space complexity. Mention optimizations like tracking only affected rows/columns or using a queue of candidate positions.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.