Timeline for Loopholes that are forbidden by default
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24 at 0:53 | history | edited | emanresu A | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 278 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2021 at 8:57 | comment | added | Kaz | Just require that the compiler's characters be counted. Problem solved. | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 14, 2018 at 22:04 | comment | added | rydwolf | @mbomb007 Just a joke. I knew about the interpreter-only rule already. | |
| Apr 14, 2018 at 20:48 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @RedwolfPrograms We don't allow languages to be posted unless they have an interpreter. A transpiler wouldn't be enough to allow an answer to be posted. | |
| Apr 14, 2018 at 14:53 | comment | added | rydwolf | Your post leaves a loophole itself: building a transpiler is still possible! | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 24, 2016 at 18:25 | comment | added | mbomb007 | My anger is only now, because you're bumping this and it's more than a year old, and you still didn't get it, apparently. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 17:22 | comment | added | John Gowers | Thanks anyway for pointing out the meta consensus on how a language is defined on this site - I'm not sure how I missed that, but now I've done a quick search I've found some posts about it. So I apologise for calling that into doubt earlier; I genuinely didn't realize that that was the official consensus and thought that it was just an opinion held by some users on this site. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 17:19 | comment | added | John Gowers | @mbomb007 A word of advice - when you're trying to convince someone of a point of view, it's actually counterproductive to adopt an attitude that they're being "intentionally dishonest", that they "won't accept" things and that they "don't get it", and to adopt a combative and offensive stance when talking to them. I don't know where all this anger is coming from when I have always tried to be reasonable. I have, by and large, agreed with the community and accepted their point of view, mainly thanks to other users who have been more polite to me. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 15:29 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @Donkey_2009 And you have to realize, we all disagree with you. Your comments in the discussion on your answer that was invalidated show that you still don't get it, and are trying to rationalize your usage of something we determined to be forbidden. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 15:21 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @Donkey_2009 It's meta consensus that on this site we define a language by its implementation. Every implementation is considered unique. "We", meaning, all of us. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 14:26 | comment | added | John Gowers | @mbomb007 I was one of the 33 people who voted for this, and I take issue with your statement that I was intentionally dishonest. I was always completely open about how my solution worked and that the compiler did not exist before the question was posted. And I think you'll have a hard time backing up your statement that 'languages are defined by their implementation', particularly for a language like C, for which there are numerous official standards available. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 14:18 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @Donkey_2009 The goal in golfing is not to "get around" loopholes, which is exactly what you were trying to do. You're being intentionally dishonest in how you were answering. Languages are defined by their implementation, and the compiler is part of the implementation. Your all-new compiler did not exist at the time the question was posted. It is also a forbidden loophole now, simply because it has 33 upvotes establishing meta consensus. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 11:44 | comment | added | John Gowers | As the user referred to in this question, I still don't believe that this is a special case of existing loopholes. For example, a user could submit an empty source file written in the language Undefined (esolangs.org/wiki/Undefined) as a solution to any question, after requiring that the program be compiled with <new compiler that compiles empty source to xxx program>. That's making use of the language Undefined as it has always existed. | |
| Dec 31, 2015 at 15:49 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @user2428118 That's already a rule and is mandated. It's not a loophole. | |
| Dec 31, 2015 at 13:45 | comment | added | user2428118 | I would put it differently: answers may only make use of a language as it existed at the time the challenge was posted. If it depends on features added after the challenge was posted, it is invalid. But if you can prove your modification to the language has been published online before the challenge was posted, I don't consider this a problem. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 13:55 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @Timwi So would I, but the user in the linked answer wouldn't accept that fact. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 5:42 | comment | added | Timwi | I’d even go so far as to say that extending the language makes it a new and different language, and is therefore a special case of this | |
| S Aug 26, 2015 at 20:00 | history | answered | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Aug 26, 2015 at 20:00 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by mbomb007 |