Is is acceptable to bunch together multiple answers in a CW post just because the challenge is trivial?
1 Answer
No, this is not acceptable
xnor's proposal to combine equivalent trivial answers talks about solutions that are just a built-in. None of the answers in the post you mention are just rather; they all consist of at least three tokens. Furthermore, although the differences may be subtle, they certainly aren't all equivalent.
Aside from the fact that a single answer is now hogging the challenge for an arbitrary number of languages (the Python answer isn't less trivial than the answer in the CW post), the answers aren't explained as well as they could be, there's a huge potential for editing conflicts as the post grows larger, votes cannot discriminate between good and bad solutions, and we've pinned a vertically large post to the top, furthermore decreasing the attention less trivial answers will get.
Personally, I can't see any upsides to making a huge CW posts for anything but one-step answers (the fact that there are two Jelly answers lumped in there shows that answers aren't as trivial as they're supposed to be). I propose to delete this answer and repost the solutions as separate answers, as they should have been posted in the first place.
-
4\$\begingroup\$ I think it's clear from the discussions about "trivial solutions" in the last month that we need clear guidelines about what constitutes a trivial solution... \$\endgroup\$– GiuseppeDec 20, 2017 at 13:57
►L↔
(Husk) andLÐṀḢ
(Jelly) do fit xnor's criterion. No? \$\endgroup\$L
,ÐṀ
, andḢ
are three built-ins, not one. \$\endgroup\$►
andL
two different things? \$\endgroup\$►
is only a combinator and wouldn't be a valid program/function. \$\endgroup\$