12:08 AM
that's not a good
especially when it's from trying to click on the file explorer

12:35 AM
@NewPosts Very unfortunately, Brachylog's `αΊ` doesn't work in reverse--looks like an infinite recursion error.

π­

It's okay, I've got a 6-byte solution
which is surprisingly pretty fast, at least for the given test cases

nice

imagine not timing out for anything larger than a 2x2 matrix

1:00 AM
Sandbox posts last active a week ago: Split cell and duplicate content

@lyxal okay

1:21 AM
... oh

1:41 AM
thanks word

I noticed a peculiar thing about Windows Console.
Namely, it cannot display β’ (U+2662) properly even after setting the correct encoding.

@lyxal faster is also shorter in mathematica :)

that's powershell

so far faster is 1 byte longer in jelly π­

that's command prompt

1:48 AM
...i didn't notice jonathan allan also has a completely different faster 12-byter

2 hours later…
4:12 AM
25

Consider two lists, A and B. To weave them together, we take the first element of A, then the first element of B, then the next element of A, the next element of B, and so on, ending with the last element of A. A = [1,2,3,4,5] B = [6,7,8,9] A weave B = [1,6,2,7,3,8,4,9,5] This process works as d...

Remember when I said this a year ago?
Apr 25, 2023 at 21:04, by DLosc
I think there's a fair amount of untapped potential in Acc!! golf. I haven't had the patience to write especially complex programs in it, though.
Mukundan314 has proven me right, in spades

5 hours later…
9:06 AM
I have an integer X that 1<=X<=N. You can provide a set and ask if X is in it. I may lie but at any time there's not more lie than truth. How small set can you guarantee X is in?
E.g. if N=100, by asking set [1,50] you can know a set of size 50. First answer must be truth, otherwise lie(1) is more than truth(0).

" I may lie but at any time there's not more lie than truth" ??

E.g. second answer may be truth or lie[in this case lie(1) is not more than truth(1)]

3 hours later…
12:34 PM
0

PlusOrMinus is an esoteric programming language invented by Esolang user PythonshellDebugwindow. Language specification There is a wrapping byte accumulator (incrementing 255 results in 0 and decrementing 0 results in 255) in the language. There are two instructions in the language: +, which inc...

1 hour later…
1:38 PM
Huh I somehow just managed to get a silver math tag badge

1:57 PM
professional mather confirmed

3 hours later…
4:55 PM
Fun fact: 100 out of every 100 bugs is a programmer's fault

wrong, once a cosmic ray made me accidentally add a keylogger to my program

thats also a programmer's fault
someone misarranged the CPU causing the cosmic ray to hit that one critical spot
and the CPU was designed by a program thereby being a programmer's fault

no, it hit me in my brain :(

5:21 PM

1 hour later…
6:27 PM
@lyxal ggwp
I'm pretty close behind you--just need 28 more score

6:40 PM
It's interesting looking at the gold tag badges that aren't .
The easiest one to get is , followed by and . The latter two are mostly just the top site users, but each of them has one sub-100k outlier, and interestingly, they're different outliers (alephalpha has , Emigna has ).
Unsurprisingly, stasoid is the only one with a gold badge.
Gold tag badges have been awarded for 13 different tags so far, and Dennis has 10 of them.

@DLosc if anyone else had a gold polyglot badge i would be shocked

LOL--as a matter of fact, nobody else even has a silver polyglot badge.

6:57 PM
@DLosc ok thats a bit surprising actually

Outside of the top 8 site users, the only ones with non- gold tag badges are: alephalpha, DJMcMayhem, Emigna, ETHproductions, Lynn, nimi, ovs, Shaggy, and stasoid. Emigna is the only one with more than one ( and ).

7:26 PM
meanwhile I don't even have a silver tag badge :p

@mathscat i only have code golf silver badge lol

3 hours later…
10:02 PM
Any feedback? In particular, is my spec of the regex format clear enough?

According to your current spec, `(a|b)*` from the test cases is incorrect; it should be `((a|b))*`

Whoops, fixed

You might also want to explicitly state that something like `((a))` doesn't have to be handled. It's implicitly excluded by the syntax rules, but somebody will probably ask about it.

It's definitely a good idea to use a more consistent format, but that has the side effect of me occasionally forgetting I'm using it
I don't know if it would necessarily trip anyone's solutions up, but something like `(((a)?|b))*` and/or `((a)?(b)?)*` might be good for completeness
Those are both equivalent to `((a|b))*` right?
Okay then, `(a(b)?c)*`