5 years ago I asked this question.

I made it clear that leaving a double h lefter from a "sh" or "SH" becoming "thh" or "Thh" was acceptable. But now I'm older and wiser, I would like to ask it again but this time not allow for these double "hh"s. My two questions are:

  1. Is this too similar to the original problem, and
  2. is the change too simple that it won't make any difference worth golfing?
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think it would be too thimilar. It's a thmall change, and thince motht tholutionth uthe regexpth already, it wouldn't make much of a difference. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 15, 2021 at 18:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BrowncatPrograms that's what It high, its just another two strings to regex, however I might consider a un-lisp-inator question because of how hard it was to read your comment, thanks though \$\endgroup\$
    – george
    Sep 15, 2021 at 18:18

1 Answer 1


Yes, it's too similar

The standard metric we use here for "Is challenge A a duplicate of challenge B?" is "Can answers from B be trivially ported to answer A?". Most of the answers to the challenge use some form of regex. To adapt them to the new challenge would involve something along the lines of adding h? to the S/s matches. There may be a few answers where requiring handling an extra h would be significant amount of work, but most answers would be easily ported across.

In short, if you posted this new one, I'd close it as a duplicate of your older one.

But thank you for asking first before posting :) It makes everything easier for everyone involved


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .