Activity for trichoplax
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #287050 |
I see now - thanks for the explanation. I should have tested the unary cases before making a suggestion... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: A few more test cases |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #287050 |
Can you save a couple of bytes by using `m>0` instead of `if m else`? (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: Condense long output point |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: Suggest explanations in answers |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 |
Post edited: Add request for explanations in answers |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287035 |
Post edited: Formating for explanation request |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287035 |
Post edited: Prefer answers with explanations |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 |
Post edited: Set a provisional max input length |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 |
Post edited: Improve introduction |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 |
Post edited: Relax output data type requirements |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 |
Post edited: Remove redundant "treated as" |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 |
Post edited: Add more test cases |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 |
Post edited: Specify test case output format |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287040 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Article | — |
Rationalise recurring binary [FINALIZED] Now posted: Rationalise recurring binary Given a potentially recurring binary string, output the number it represents, as a fraction in lowest terms. The notation used in this challenge for recurring digits is non-standard. An `r` is used to indicate that the remaining digits recur. For exa... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287026 |
Post edited: Indicate this is no longer my opinion |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287033 |
Post edited: Add torn afterthought |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287033 |
Post edited: Fix inaccurate search behaviour description |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287033 |
Post edited: Mention cannot add "finalized" tag if there are already 5 tags |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Add finalized tag, edit title, link to posted challenge |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287035 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Question | — |
Presumptuous base conversion Take an input string representing a number and convert it to decimal (base 10). However, the base of the input is not specified. Assume the input is in the smallest base for which its digits are valid. Input - The input consists only of characters from 0123456789ABCDEF where A to F represent the ... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Remove ambiguity from opening sentence |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Slight wording improvement |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Avoid confusion as N is not a valid digit |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Remove one more "assumed" |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Rephrase the output section to avoid the word "assume" |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Clarify output section on leading zeroes |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287033 |
Post edited: Clearer subheadings |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287033 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Filtering the sandbox for ease of feedback Both tags and [FINALIZED] are problematic Problem with tags Having been shown the related meta post [Separate the tags away from the Sandbox or delete the \[finalized\] tag] I can now see that having tags in the Sandbox that are not tags for Challenges is problematic. It's clear from that post that... (more) |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: Add diagram and extra wording for clarity |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Add a unary test case |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: Improve wording and add a larger truthy test case |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Clarify output section |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Improve example calculation |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Fix incorrect test cases |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287008 |
Post edited: Split specification into input and output sections |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years 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) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: Narrow down sandbox questions to those that still need feedback |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: Address feedback |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287005 |
Post edited: Specify 8 by 8 chequer board in the output section |
— | about 2 years ago |