| **Note: The only difference between this problem and [problem C2](https://www.facebook.com/codingcompetitions/hacker-cup/2022/qualification-round/problems/C2) is that here, the length of each output codeword may be at most 200.** | |
| Morse code is a classic way to send messages, where each letter in an alphabet is substituted with a *codeword*: a unique sequence of dots and dashes. However, ignoring spaces, it's possible for a coded message to have multiple meanings. For example, "`.....--.-.-.-..-.-.-...-.--.`" can be interpreted as either "`HACKER CUP`" or "`SEE META RENT A VAN`": | |
| {{PHOTO_ID:1264108514364518|WIDTH:700}} | |
| Beyond Morse code, a general set of codewords is an *unambiguous encoding* if any possible sequence of dots and dashes corresponds to either zero or exactly one sequence of codewords. | |
| Given one codeword \(C_1\) from a set of \(N\) distinct codewords, your task is to generate another \(N - 1\) codewords \(C_2, ..., C_N\) to yield an unambiguous encoding. It can be shown that an answer always exists. If there are multiple answers, you may print any one of them. | |
| # Constraints | |
| \(1 \le T \le 100\) | |
| \(2 \le N \le 100\) | |
| The length of \(C_1\) is between \(1\) and \(100\), inclusive. | |
| The length of each \(C_2, ..., C_N\) must be between \(1\) and \(\mathbf{200}\), inclusive. | |
| # Input Format | |
| Input begins with an integer \(T\), the number of test cases. For each case, there is first a line containing a single integer \(N\). Then, there is a line containing the codeword \(C_1\). | |
| # Output Format | |
| For the \(i\)th case, output a line containing only "`Case #i:`", followed by \(N - 1\) lines, the codewords \(C_2, ..., C_N\), one per line. | |
| # Sample Explanation | |
| In the first case, it can be shown that the codewords {"`.-.`", "`...`", "`---`"} are an unambiguous encoding. Any sequence of dots and dashes can be interpreted if and only if it has a length that's a multiple of 3, and can be broken up into instances of the three length-3 codewords. | |
| In the second case, it can be shown that the codewords {"`-`", "`...`", "`.-`", "`..-`"} are an unambiguous encoding. For instance, "`..`" has no possible interpretation, and "`.-...--`" can only be interpreted as "`.- ... - -`". | |
| In the third case, it can be shown that the codewords {"`..`", "`-`", "`.-`"} are an unambiguous encoding. For any sequence of dots and dashes: | |
| - every odd group of dots followed by a dash can only be interpreted as repeated "`..`"s followed by a final "`.-`" | |
| - every even group of dots followed by a dash can only be interpreted as repeated "`..`"s followed by a final "`-`" | |
| - every group of dots not followed by a dash (i.e. at the end of the sequence), is interpretable if and only if there is an even number of dots | |
| - this leaves only groups of dashes, interpreted only as repeated "`-`"s | |