COMP10002 Assignment 2 Feedback: XXUSERNAMEXX

Program Presentation

• Up to Stage 1 initial allocation, +1.
• Up to Stage 2 initial allocation, +2.
• Up to Stage 3 initial allocation, +3.
• Up to Stage 4 initial allocation, +3.

Deductions

Some subset of the following lines will be retained by the marker. Marks in each section won't go below zero.

• #defines not in upper case, -0.5;
• absence of function prototypes, -0.5;
• bad choice for function names, -0.5;
• bad choices for variable names, -0.5;
• use of typedefs without "_t", -0.5;
• excessive commenting, -0.5;
• inconsistent bracket placement, -0.5;
• inconsistent indentation, -0.5;
• insufficient commenting (at least one comment per function to explain what the function does), -0.5;
• lack of whitespace (blank line between functions or code blocks), -0.5;
• lines >80 chars, -0.5;
• no authorship statement (student name and id at the top of program), -0.5;
• use of external code without attribution, -1;
• use of magic numbers, -0.5;
• other stylistic issue (minor), -0.5;
• other stylistic issue (major), -1;

Additions (included in total mark only if marks lost within this first section)

• comment that says "algorithms are fun", +0.5;
• overall care and presentation, +0.5;

Other Comments from Marker

Structure and Approach

Some subset of the following lines will be retained by the marker.

• Up to Stage 1 initial allocation, +1.
• Up to Stage 2 initial allocation, +2.
• Up to Stage 3 initial allocation, +3.
• Up to Stage 4 initial allocation, +4.

Deductions
Some subset of the following lines will be retained by the marker. Marks in each section won't go below zero.

• duplicate code segments (e.g., implementing binary search twice), -0.5;
• global variables, -0.5;
• insufficient use of functions, -0.5;
• functions too long (over 50 lines for any function) or too complex, -0.5;
• overly complex algorithmic approach, -1;
• unnecessary duplication/copying of data, -0.5;
• avoidance of typedefs, -0.5;
• overly complex function argument lists, -0.5;
• using == for equality on doubles, -0.5;
• avoidance of structs, -1;
• avoidance of pointers to structs, -0.5;
• Stage 3 not using a linked data structure, -2;
• Stage 4 missing time complexity analysis or time complexity over O(nlogm), -1;
• other structural issue (minor), -0.5;
• other structural issue (major), -1;

Other comments from marker:

Program Execution

Some subset of the following lines will be retained by the marker.

• Up to Stage 1 initial allocation, +2.
• Up to Stage 2 initial allocation, +4.
• Up to Stage 3 initial allocation, +6.
• Up to Stage 4 initial allocation, +8.

Deductions

Some subset of the following lines will be retained by the marker. Marks in each section won't go below zero.

• deduct all execution marks if program generates no output at all; otherwise, deduct marks for the following items:
  
  
• incorrect Stage 1 output on invis0, -1 (for all formatting errors in Stage 1, deduct 0.5 marks once across all test cases);
• incorrect Stage 2 output on invis0, -1 (for all formatting errors in Stage 2, deduct 0.5 marks once across all test cases);
• incorrect Stage 3 output on invis0, -1 (for all formatting errors in Stage 3, deduct 0.5 marks once across all test cases);
• incorrect Stage 4 output on invis0, -1 (for all formatting errors in Stage 4, deduct 0.5 marks once across all test cases);
  
  
• incorrect Stage 1 output on invis1, -1;
• incorrect Stage 2 output on invis1, -1;
• incorrect Stage 3 output on invis1, -1;
• incorrect Stage 4 output on invis1, -1;
  
  

Late Penalty

XXMARKXX