{"push_id":3119806083,"size":4,"distinct_size":4,"ref":"refs/heads/master","head":"fa76dba54a8fd5ae026699c812a5ef88b4a2f0b9","before":"7229165b25f06067b01986aeb486fe0b52273386","commits":[{"sha":"ea35c3e9867288a9da4000cc92bc46eee50690cc","author":{"name":"AE","email":"d9370b7abf0a4a81e64e2688a4cc5170a7076619@users.noreply.github.com"},"message":"WIP\n\nI probably misunderstand something about this puzzle...","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/troglodude/aoc18/commits/ea35c3e9867288a9da4000cc92bc46eee50690cc"},{"sha":"4a4bc6237f1db78ed204f61db7bd6a15a92f4089","author":{"name":"AE","email":"d9370b7abf0a4a81e64e2688a4cc5170a7076619@users.noreply.github.com"},"message":"Start of new approach.\n\nUsing intersection of claims is not viable. The result of inter-\nsecting multiple claims (which are connected entities) could be\na disconnected entity, e.g. intersecion of a large claim with\ntwo smaller claims which have an empty intersection themselves.\n\nThe new approach consists in simply marking the claims in an\n\"infinite\" field represented by a hash and keyed by `cons`es\n`(x y)`.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/troglodude/aoc18/commits/4a4bc6237f1db78ed204f61db7bd6a15a92f4089"},{"sha":"99b4541f896e0b55edff56b05867c30078ce8579","author":{"name":"AE","email":"d9370b7abf0a4a81e64e2688a4cc5170a7076619@users.noreply.github.com"},"message":"Solution for part 1 of day 3.\n\nAt least for this part the new approach has paid off.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/troglodude/aoc18/commits/99b4541f896e0b55edff56b05867c30078ce8579"},{"sha":"fa76dba54a8fd5ae026699c812a5ef88b4a2f0b9","author":{"name":"AE","email":"d9370b7abf0a4a81e64e2688a4cc5170a7076619@users.noreply.github.com"},"message":"Solutions for day 3.\n\nUsed `vecto` to visualize the problem and to find the flaw in the\n`overlap-p` predicate.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/troglodude/aoc18/commits/fa76dba54a8fd5ae026699c812a5ef88b4a2f0b9"}]}
{"actor":{"display_login":"troglodude"}}