Activity for trichoplax
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #292920 |
Post edited: Add finalized tag to allow filtering out |
— | 7 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293001 |
If placeholders are not permitted in answers, but are used in an example, I would expect some people to (understandably) misinterpret the rules. I would expect less confusion if the example were also valid as an answer.
If there is no way to express the rule "can duplicate any string that comes af... (more) |
— | 8 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293001 |
Does this mean that it is your intention to allow placeholder strings in answers too, not just in the example? If so it's worth making that explicit in the "What is a rewrite rule?" section. Currently it would be easy for someone to interpret that section as only allowing direct use of symbols in the... (more) |
— | 8 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293001 |
The section "What is a rewrite rule?" makes clear that the 2 strings can only contain symbols from your alphabet. However, the example of impossibility has rewrite rules that include placeholders x and y that are not symbols from the alphabet "MIU".
If you would like the example to be consistent w... (more) |
— | 8 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293089 |
There is nothing wrong with not posting in the Sandbox. I mentioned that I use the Sandbox in case that would be helpful for future challenges. There is no obligation. (more) |
— | 9 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292939 |
Nice​ ​ (more) |
— | 10 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293089 |
> **You do not need to return all possible permutations of one single array.**
Does this mean that you are *permitted* to return only one permutation of each quintuplet, or that you are *required* to return only one permutation of each quintuplet?
The distinction is important because in some pr... (more) |
— | 10 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293089 |
Most challenges require fine tuning, so I post mine in the [Sandbox category](https://codegolf.codidact.com/categories/50) to avoid any answers arriving until the wording is free of potential ambiguity. (more) |
— | 10 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293089 |
In addition to editing to make the correct interpretation explicit, it would be helpful to have some test cases for this specific situation.
For example, what should be the output for the following input:
```text
-1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3
Target: 5
``` (more) |
— | 10 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293089 |
> In the case of multiple arrays, we also add the requirements that at least two values in each of the arrays are distinct.
Does this mean "for each pair of quintuplets, each quintuplet must have at least 2 elements not present in the other", or the stronger "for each quintuplet, at least 2 of its... (more) |
— | 10 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293089 |
> - In the case of multiple arrays, we also add the requirements that at least two values in each of the arrays are distinct.
The problem specification refers to an array of quintuplets. Does "multiple arrays" here refer to multiple quintuplets? (more) |
— | 10 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292936 |
In general, I would much prefer to avoid rule changes. In this particular case, I can't see a way to have spotted this ambiguity before answers arrived, and now that answers have arrived, either way of resolving the ambiguity will disadvantage half of the answers (it was just a matter of choosing whi... (more) |
— | 13 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292936 |
From my perspective, the new wording appears to be a change, which I'm uncomfortable with for the same reasons as you.
However, my impression is that from the challenge author's perspective, this is a clarification rather than a change. The wording in the comment on the challenge supports this:
... (more) |
— | 13 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293005 |
Update:
I've tried making this change in the link provided in the answer, and all test cases pass (identical output, but saving 1 byte in the code). (more) |
— | 24 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293005 |
The challenge author has now edited to allow rounding of 33.33 to either 33 or 34, so this answer is now correct for all test cases. (more) |
— | 24 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292936 |
The challenge author has now edited to allow rounding of 33.33 to either 33 or 34, so there is now nothing to be fixed. This answer is correct on all test cases. (more) |
— | 24 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292936 |
I've asked for clarification from the challenge author, and the challenge has now been edited to indicate that rounding of 33.33 can be to either 33 or 34, and an extra test case output has been added, so the online test case for `F 3 2` is correct. (more) |
— | 24 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292935 |
A number of the current answers show 34 lots of `|` instead of 33 for the second test case (Input: 2/3).
I have assumed that 2/3*50=33.33 must be rounded down to 33, rather than up to 34, and added comments to the relevant answers. However, it occurs to me that some people may interpret your round... (more) |
— | 26 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292936 |
I also couldn't see a way to run the code at the time the answer was posted, but there seem to have been some improvements to the interface since then. There is now a "Run" button to the lower right of the code, which displays the output for the 4 test cases.
One of the test cases is off by one, s... (more) |
— | 26 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292936 |
The online test case for `F 3 2` shows 34 lots of `|` rather than 33. (more) |
— | 26 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293005 |
Test case 2 (`f(2,3)`) has 34 lots of `|` rather than 33. (more) |
— | 26 days ago |
| Comment | Post #292939 |
The online test cases give only 49 characters (51 including the `[` and `]`) rather than 50 (52 including the `[` and `]`).
Also, the second test case uses `1/3` instead of `2/3`. (more) |
— | 26 days ago |
| Comment | Post #293005 |
I haven't tested this, but could you save a byte by using `>` instead of `<=`? I'd expect this to avoid changing the rounding in the way that `<` would. (more) |
— | 26 days ago |
| Edit | Post #292939 |
Post edited: Typo in comment |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #292920 |
That's a good point. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292920 |
Since you mention rounding, it might be worth mentioning the behaviour expected for decimals ending in 5. Some places always round up (2.5 rounds to 3, 3.5 rounds to 4), but other places (particularly statistical or scientific settings) have other rules, such as [round to even](https://en.wikipedia.o... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292910 |
Although I can guess, it's worth editing to explicitly explain how you are getting all 26 letters of the alphabet in less than 26 bytes. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292891 | Initial revision | — | about 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
Advice for hosting a language agnostic King of the Hill contest A King of the Hill contest requires that a controller program provided by the person hosting the contest communicate (both input and output) with each of the entries to the contest. For some contests these entries may be functions to be called by the controller, and in other contests the entries may ... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292835 |
Post edited: Improve sentence flow |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292756 |
The idea is not that the input would come into the program through function parameters, but that the function would be called from within a larger program, and the program would call it using arguments as input. This allows competing to find the shortest function that solves a problem, rather than to... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292756 |
> This is under the assumption that in a function solution, input has to be passed as parameter and output through the return value
I would be interested to hear any alternatives you considered, and whether you think they would make good defaults for input and output for function solutions.
Eve... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292835 |
Post edited: Add extra detail |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292835 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Category migration and the sandbox Start afresh but keep history When migrating to the Challenges category, there are several aspects of the post that could be included or discarded: - Comments - Edit history - Votes Comments The comments during sandbox development are not relevant to the final challenge, and would be a dist... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292376 |
Post edited: Add finalized tag to allow filtering out |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292830 |
One thing I forgot to ask about in the Sandbox:
> The program need not do anything meaningful but must compile cleanly (no language syntax or constraint violations etc)
I assume from this that warnings that do not prevent compilation/interpretation are acceptable. Either way, it might be helpfu... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292834 | Initial revision | — | 2 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Category migration and the sandbox Sandbox votes should give no reputation I believe this is already the case, but for completeness: I agree that neither upvotes nor downvotes on Sandbox posts should affect reputation. Although I would encourage everyone to sandbox every challenge idea, I think the benefits of rewarding sandbox... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292831 |
Since there are a few separate questions here, I can see a benefit to posting one idea per answer. This way, I can post an idea about whether sandbox votes should count and an idea about whether to reset votes, and one can be upvoted and the other downvoted. If they were posted in a single answer, th... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #289782 |
Post edited: Fix typo |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #287082 |
Good point. It would be useful to list each direction. I've edited to add a TODO so I don't forget to do this before posting. (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #287082 |
Post edited: Add TODO for direction of each compass point |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292000 |
Post edited: Add TODO for checking choice of sphere makes little difference |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292000 |
Since all of the surface patterns in the test cases are formed by overlapping spheres to take advantage of this effect, I will double check before posting that either choice of which sphere's colour to display gives sufficiently similar output images. (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292000 |
When 2 spheres A and B overlap, there are 3 types of overlapping points:
- The surface of A is inside the surface of B (so the nearest intersection will be B).
- The surface of B is inside the surface of A (so the nearest intersection will be A).
- The 2 surfaces meet along a circle (infinitely th... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292000 |
I've now edited the Output section to mention this - thank you.
The test cases will be adjusted to match the newly specified z range before posting. (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292000 |
Post edited: Specify z range |
— | 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #292000 |
Post edited: Specify what happens when 2 or more intersections are nearest |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #292000 |
Good question.
Short answer:
I should make explicit that the code can choose either. I will edit accordingly.
Waffle:
The only case where I'd expect this to make a noticeable difference to the resulting image is when two spheres are identical in both centre and radius, which could cause o... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |