Timeline for New puzzle type: code-shuffleboard
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2011 at 17:04 | answer | added | Grace NoteStaffMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 14, 2011 at 4:39 | answer | added | user unknown | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jul 11, 2011 at 7:54 | comment | added | boothby | @SHiNKiROU, if an author were to hack numerical instability into their solution for the purpose of requiring extra parens, I'd absolutely give it to them. That is precisely the spirit of code-shuffleboard. | |
| Jul 11, 2011 at 2:31 | comment | added | Ming-Tang |
What about this? stackoverflow.com/questions/6430448/… Putting parens as fillers (a*a*a)*(a*a*a) and claiming removing them breaks the code because of floating point precision.
|
|
| Jul 10, 2011 at 20:12 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | Joey's point is a good one. Perhaps it should be expressed as "must be a multiple of N chars" where N is e.g. 32. | |
| Jul 10, 2011 at 8:46 | comment | added | Joey | Would the number of characters be given in the task? That'd probably be a horrible idea, given how far from each other golfed solutions often are and inflating something by a few dozen bytes just for the sake of it is probably hard. | |
| Jul 10, 2011 at 8:44 | comment | added | Joey | So basically the criterion is: »It shall be impossible to naïvely golf the code further – further shortening must involve rewriting or rearranging the code or other drastical measures«? | |
| Jul 9, 2011 at 19:09 | comment | added | boothby | On second thought, that example I provided would be forbidden; deleting every instance of 1000 would preserve functionality | |
| Jul 9, 2011 at 9:27 | comment | added | marinus | The rectangle idea would be fun for Befunge and its derivatives, which are useless for normal golfing despite all the 1-char commands, because the 2D layout tends to use up a lot of bytes. | |
| Jul 8, 2011 at 2:46 | comment | added | boothby |
Wow, what a screwy language. I think I'd accept that, since it would probably have numerous side effects. On the other hand, I realized that my rule doesn't forbid for(x=10000;x<100010;x++)print x-10000, though it probably should.
|
|
| Jul 7, 2011 at 5:51 | comment | added | Peter Taylor |
Ok, seems a lot harder to wiggle now. An example from GS would be storing something in a variable and then later retrieving it and subtracting 5. If the variable is $ that's $5-, but if the variable is x it has to be x 5- to avoid the variable name being lexed as x5.
|
|
| Jul 6, 2011 at 23:30 | comment | added | boothby | @Peter, I clarified the statement; does that help? I'm not familiar enough with GS to comment on changing variable names; can you provide an example? | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 23:27 | history | edited | boothby | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 50 characters in body
|
| Jul 6, 2011 at 16:05 | comment | added | Peter Taylor |
@Alexandru, that's one interpretation, but x=y/z+1-1 seems to me to contain some code which isn't dead but is completely useless.
|
|
| Jul 6, 2011 at 12:30 | comment | added | Alexandru | My understanding is that 'no useless' == 'no dead code'. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | "No useless code" sounds rather hard to define objectively. And what's your position on changing variable names to make whitespace necessary which wasn't necessary before? (I'm thinking of GS' weird parsing). | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 7:42 | comment | added | Alexandru | Sounds nice. I'll definitely use it for my next problem. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 1:56 | history | asked | boothby | CC BY-SA 3.0 |