Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »

Activity for orthoplex‭

Type On... Excerpt Status Date
Comment Post #285929 You can eliminate the plus sign via `a+b` → `a-(-b)`.
(more)
almost 2 years ago
Comment Post #286668 You can eliminate the init-loop by or-ing the lookup with 0. Using `pairs` also seems a bit overkill since you're not using `k` anywhere. `function(t)r={}for i=1,#t do r[t[i]]=1+(r[t[i]]or 0)end return r end`
(more)
almost 2 years ago
Comment Post #286637 Actually, `set(x)` → `x` works just fine in this case. I also found a set-of-pairs solution that is equally as long: `lambda x:{*zip(x,map(x.count,x))}`
(more)
almost 2 years ago
Comment Post #286311 At first, I thought you were cheesing the test cases, but you're right, -1 is the only negative number you can possibly get. Clever! The penultimate line should then be ```lua _=(_==256or _<0)and 0or _ ```
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #286311 Tables to the rescue ^^ ```lua _=0 for c in s:gmatch'.'do _=({d=_-1,i=_+1;s=_*_})[c]or print(_)or _ _=({[256]=0,[-1]=0})[_]or _ end ```
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #286301 How about we use our own function to shorten the for-loop even more? This should also relieve your discomfort with not calling `f`. ```lua local function f()goto l::l::return end for _ in f do end if true and false then elseif""then else end repeat until""or not nil while""do break end ```
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #286301 Oh oops, you're right, I completely overlooked `in`. Still, the for-loop could be shortened to something sneaky like ```lua for x in print do end ```
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #286301 You can shorten your for-loop and save a few spaces on the numerical constants. Also, I don't think the rules require you to call your function in the end. ```lua local function f()if true then for v=0,0 do while false do break end repeat until""and""or not nil end elseif""then else end goto l::l::...
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #286300 You can shorten your loop by using goto. As a bonus, this makes your code look even more cryptic (: ```lua _=''::_::_=_..'*'print(_)goto _ ```
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #286295 oh sweet, we have a 35 then ^^ ```haskell main=mapM putStrLn$iterate('*':)"*" ```
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #286295 Neat solution, but that import is quite expensive. Maybe try something like ```haskell x="*":map('*':)x main=mapM putStrLn x ```
(more)
about 2 years ago
Comment Post #285903 `%#_ _` has 4 unique bytes, no?
(more)
over 2 years ago