Timeline for Regular ASCII Polygons
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2019 at 14:22 | answer | added | Grimmy | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 28, 2019 at 21:32 | answer | added | Paul-B98 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 27, 2019 at 10:31 | answer | added | Neil | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 27, 2019 at 2:49 | answer | added | Level River St | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 27, 2019 at 1:18 | comment | added | The Fifth Marshal | @GammaFunction's loophole is already in the standard loopholes, so wouldn't be allowed. That same loophole may or may not cover Nick Kennedy's. | |
| Oct 27, 2019 at 0:54 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing♦ |
@Arnauld The < and > characters didn't work with the <pre> tags. Updated to fix that
|
|
| Oct 27, 2019 at 0:53 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing♦ | I've updated the rules on what makes a valid indicator and not to invalidate the suggested loopholes by @GammaFunction and Nick Kennedy. While it's rather restrictive, I think its better than allowing the input to be exploited to shorten the code. | |
| Oct 27, 2019 at 0:51 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2019 at 14:41 | comment | added | Luis Mendo | It’s unclear, and subjective, to refer to the "spirit" of the challenge. I think it’s better to have a clear spec as to what’s allowed and what’s not | |
| Oct 26, 2019 at 13:43 | answer | added | Arnauld | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 26, 2019 at 13:29 | comment | added | Jonathan Allan |
However, I'd expect the community to downvote answers which violate the spirit of the challenge, such as an answer that uses that "loophole", and I certainly would downvote such a boring answer I really do not think that we should downvote an answer to a code golf question that is both golfed and fits the defined spec!
|
|
| Oct 26, 2019 at 12:53 | comment | added | GammaFunction |
Actually, scratch that, I found a way more abusive solution: eval. The four distinct inputs just define functions which format the four shapes. @cairdcoinheringaahing, I recommend scoring as length(code)+length(indicators); or restrict indicator to one character.
|
|
| Oct 26, 2019 at 12:47 | comment | added | GammaFunction | @NickKennedy that would work for only one size string. How would a program use that input and a string of length 15? | |
| Oct 26, 2019 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCodeGolf/status/1188062870103379968 | ||
| Oct 26, 2019 at 10:12 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing♦ | @NickKennedy That is perfectly valid. However, I'd expect the community to downvote answers which violate the spirit of the challenge, such as an answer that uses that "loophole", and I certainly would downvote such a boring answer | |
| Oct 26, 2019 at 7:55 | comment | added | Nick Kennedy |
The current input spec could be abused. I could specify that a triangle should be specified as [[0,0,1,0],[0,1,0,1],[1,0,1,0,1]] for example, and so avoid the need to encode the triangle within code. Or is that ok?
|
|
| Oct 26, 2019 at 5:47 | history | asked | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |