Activity for trichoplax
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #287088 |
As for the temptation to downvote, if you decide to then it will be part of the result of the experiment, so I don't want to discourage you from doing so. A failed experiment is still useful... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287088 |
Thanks for the feedback - it's useful whether in the sandbox or here. I understand the sandbox can't catch everything.
I share your concerns, and thought carefully about how to choose the numbers to avoid a simple built-in solution or a brute force testing of all permutations. I estimated that the... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287131 |
Upon rereading I can see that "characters" implies they must be strings/text - which was not my intention. I've edited the input section to explicitly allow numbers and Booleans. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287131 |
> You may take input in the format of your choice provided it does not provide additional information that would help solve the challenge
I can't see any way that a two-dimensional Boolean array would solve part of the challenge for you, so yes go ahead (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #282816 |
Is it worth clarifying that this restriction applies to general challenges but has exceptions for specific challenge types? For example, optimising to the test cases is fine if the challenge is defined as a test-battery rather than a specification (that is, where the tests *are* the specification), a... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #283941 |
There seems to be voting on this same point on another Meta discussion [Rules for function submissions](https://codegolf.codidact.com/posts/286366/286602#answer-286602) so I'm linking both ways for future reference. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286602 |
There seems to be voting on this same point on another Meta discussion [Default Rules: Code Golf I/O](https://codegolf.codidact.com/posts/282784/283941#answer-283941) so I'm linking both ways for future reference. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287090 |
Good point - thanks. I've now included the 12 fundamental solutions as text and images. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287055 |
Good catch - thank you! They were indeed shorter than intended - now fixed. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287054 |
Also, instead of
> **Current** voting seems to suggest that anonymous functions are acceptable
I should have said
> Voting seems to suggest that anonymous functions are **currently** acceptable
Meta is always open to further discussion, new answers, and new votes. Anything you disagree wi... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287054 |
@#56533 if it affects your perspective, some languages allow passing an anonymous function as a function argument, or returning an anonymous function as a return value. This allows another part of the program to call the anonymous function without ever having to name it.
This is common with lambda... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286989 |
I've just realised that the new clearer output specification, and example, invalidate the [existing answer](https://codegolf.codidact.com/posts/286989/286993#answer-286993) (it gives the output shown in my previous comment, which you have now explained is not valid). Just mentioning in case this affe... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287054 |
This has been mentioned previously on Meta in [Rules for function submissions](https://codegolf.codidact.com/posts/286366/286367#answer-286367) if either of you want to vote/comment/answer in that discussion.
Current voting seems to suggest that anonymous functions are acceptable. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286602 |
>
> * Assuming that things like memory allocation are handled by the caller might give contributions an unfair advantage
>
I'm not sure how to interpret this. If a fixed size input argument (such as a 32 bit integer) is modified, there is no need for memory allocation as it already exists. If ... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286602 |
> Some languages separate subroutines (do not return a value) from functions (returns a value)
In such a language I would see a subroutine that modifies an input argument as a valid submission, unless the challenge explicitly requires a function. I agree that a challenge that requires a function r... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286602 |
> Not all languages support pass by reference
I don't see this as a reason to prevent its use by languages that do support it. There are many ways that languages differ and restricting the particular advantages that each language has seems to remove the benefit of allowing submissions in different... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286602 |
I don't know which way to vote on this one.
> Therefore, interpreting a challenge asking for a return value as "return through parameter" is creating a local code golf dialect of the language
I see this Meta discussion as establishing defaults. Any challenge is free to override the defaults and... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287050 |
I see now - thanks for the explanation. I should have tested the unary cases before making a suggestion... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287050 |
Can you save a couple of bytes by using `m>0` instead of `if m else`? (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287044 |
Following the edit, I can see that this now correctly handles unary inputs and non-unary inputs with leading zeroes. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287033 |
If we do decide to go ahead with deleting finalized and cancelled Sandbox posts, ideally I'd prefer this to be with a warning comment so the challenge creator can voice any objection or copy any info not present in the main post in the Challenges section. It could just be a quick copy pasted note lik... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287040 |
That sounds sensible. I guess the limits will determine to what extent languages without arbitrary sized numbers can avoid having to do everything manually with strings.
I'm tempted to make the limits on all 3 (input length, numerator size, denominator size) quite small to avoid having to deal wit... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286989 |
Illustration of the example:
```
11111000
12221000
12321110
12222210
11123210
00122210
00111110
00000000
```
I suspect this was not intended to be a valid output but it would be good to have it made explicit either way. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286989 |
From "You can choose which one takes priority." I assume that for 2 overlapping beacons there are only 2 potential solutions.
That is, one beacon must be chosen to entirely overwrite the other everywhere that they overlap.
In case anyone has a different interpretation, such as giving priority t... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287026 |
That meta post does provide a good motivation for avoiding both "finalized" and "cancelled" tags. I'm less comfortable with "[FINALIZED]" or "[CANCELLED]" in the title - that requires searching each time I want to see posts that need feedback, rather than just setting a permanent filter on sandbox po... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287005 |
Good point.
Although this is mentioned in the opening paragraph and there are the test cases you mention, I agree it would be better for the output section to also be explicit about this, so I've added a couple more bullet points. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287005 |
Thanks for all the feedback!
I'll wait to see if there are any other opinions for or against before making a final decision on allowing empty input.
I've edited to allow the input formats you listed, added an upper limit on input size, included your extra test case, and specified that the input... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286603 |
I agree it's impractical to make exceptions for some characters, as they will differ between languages. Instead, the scoring mechanism could be used to allow arbitrary exceptions at a cost.
For example, the score could be 1 point for each unique character, with any non-unique characters scoring 0.... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #279770 |
Until I read as far as the notes section, I had assumed that each answer would have to deal with any sufficient subset of the possible inputs (rather than being written to handle one specific sufficient subset). That sounded like an interesting challenge but might have made input format tricky. The n... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279722 |
Rather than depend only on an external link, could the rules also be defined in the challenge wording so it's self contained and consistent in the event of any changes to external sites? (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279883 |
"The input can be assumed to be correct and containing no duplicates". Does "correct" here mean anything more than "contains exacty 7 digits"? If not, this might be clearer as "The input can be assumed to be exactly 7 distinct digits" (so that the reader does not need to look around to confirm what "... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279883 |
The challenge already appears to contain all of the information required, but if you wanted to make it extra clear you could include something like "Valid examples (output a Tannenbaum tree)" and "Invalid examples (no output)" so it's clear that the "Invalid examples" are still valid inputs that the ... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next →