Closed langston-barrett closed 1 year ago
Hmmm, {(69,88)}
is in fact the correct result set here. I'm guessing the lines got moved around somehow during a merge...
Yeah, this might have happened while cleaning up or replacing examples for open-sourcing.
On 4ce8832f6d5cf78773a0cf561c22b85f45e73121,
passes. On 39d9de715d3c0dbb6acc57dfbbaa60281c5300e7, it fails: