|시간 제한||메모리 제한||제출||정답||맞힌 사람||정답 비율|
|20 초 (추가 시간 없음)||1024 MB||0||0||0||0.000%|
You do not need to read the Interleaved Output: Part 1 problem to be able to solve this problem. Both Part 1 and Part 2 have the same first two paragraphs (not including this informational text). We have underlined the critical difference between the two parts.
On a distant moon of Jupiter, some developer conference events are about to happen! They are called
IO (uppercase I, uppercase O),
Io (uppercase I, lowercase o),
iO (lowercase I, uppercase O), and
io (lowercase I, lowercase O).
The best way to advertise an event is by using special computers that print the event's name one character at a time, with the output appearing on a digital display. Each such computer only knows the name of one event, and is programmed to print its event's name zero or more times. For example, a computer programmed to print
IO twice prints an
I, followed by an
O, followed by an
I, followed by an
O, for a final string of
You know that the conference organizers are using exactly one computer to advertise each event. Each printer may print its event name zero or more times. Moreover, the computers are not necessarily all programmed to print the same number of times.
The computers have all finished printing, but unfortunately, they all printed to the same display! Because the computers printed concurrently, event names in the final output string may be interleaved. You are considering the possible ways in which that string could have been produced.
For example, the string
IiOioIoO could have been produced as follows:
index: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IO: . . . . . . . . Io: I . . . o I o . iO: . i O i . . . O io: . . . . . . . . string: I i O i o I o O
In this interpretation, the
Io event was advertised twice, the
iO event was advertised twice, and the other two events were not advertised at all.
Notice that there is no valid interpretation of this string in which the
IO computer advertised its event twice. In that case, the remaining output,
iioo, would have had to have come from the
io computer, but that is impossible — that computer would have had to have printed
i twice in a row, which is not allowed.
However, it is possible that the
IO computer advertised its event once, as in the following interpretation:
index: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IO: . . . . . I . O Io: I . . . o . . . iO: . i O . . . . . io: . . . i . . o . string: I i O i o I o O
Given a final output string, what is the maximum possible number of times that the event
IO could have been advertised?
It is guaranteed that the string has at least one valid interpretation. For example,
IIOO are not valid inputs.
The first line of the input gives the number of test cases, T. T lines follow; each represents a single test case. Each case consists of a string S containing only the characters from the set
For each test case, output one line containing
Case #x: y, where
x is the test case number (starting from 1) and
y is the maximum number of times
IO could have been advertised, as described above.
5 IiOioIoO IIOiOo IoiOiO io IiOIOIoO
Case #1: 1 Case #2: 1 Case #3: 0 Case #4: 0 Case #5: 3
Sample Case #1 is the one described in the problem statement. (If you have read Interleaved Output: Part 1, notice that it is the same input as in the first sample case in that problem, but the output is different.)
In Sample Case #2, it is not possible that
IO was advertised twice, because then the
IO computer would have had to print two
Is in a row. However, it is possible that
IO was advertised once, e.g.:
index: 1 2 3 4 5 6 IO: I . O . . . Io: . I . . . o iO: . . . i O . io: . . . . . . string: I I O i O o
In Sample Case #3, notice that it is not possible that
IO was advertised. The second character,
o, must have been printed by the same computer that printed the first character
In Sample Case #4, notice that it is possible that
O might not even show up in the string.
In Sample Case #5, it is possible that
IO was advertised as many as three times (and in that case,
io was advertised once).