Timeline for Just repeat yourself
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 15:02 | history | edited | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Make it more spec compliant
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 15:00 | comment | added | Mike Bufardeci | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 14:47 | comment | added | SztupY | @MikeBufardeci this one didn't specify STDOUT, just that it has to be outputted, so I still don't see where the submission fails | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 14:42 | comment | added | Mike Bufardeci | @SztupY While there is a list of default I/O methods, they are just defaults. If a challenge specifies what the I/O methods need to be then you need to follow the challenge rules. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 11:40 | history | edited | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add note about using it as a function return
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 11:39 | comment | added | SztupY | @MikeBufardeci as far as I know there is also the consensus about "output can be a function return" which the solution can satisfy without breaking any rules | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 18:02 | comment | added | Mike Bufardeci | The consensus is that this deletion policy should apply to answers that predate it. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 17:49 | comment | added | SztupY | @MikeBufardeci which were enacted months after this answer was posted | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 16:12 | comment | added | Mike Bufardeci | @SztupY To be absolutely clear, it is site policy to delete responses that do not follow the rules of the challenge. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 15:23 | comment | added | SztupY | @WheatWizard if you think it's more worth to delete this answer than to keep it, feel free to flag it for deletion | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 14:56 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Mar 1, 2017 at 16:55 | |||||
| Mar 1, 2017 at 14:53 | comment | added | Wheat Wizard♦ | This answer is cool but answers that do not meet the specifications are subject to deletion. | |
| Sep 9, 2016 at 9:56 | comment | added | SztupY |
@trichoplax: it's in the post: 1. additional " characters in output and 2. the need of the -rpp flag (which is not like --rrpp)
|
|
| Sep 9, 2016 at 9:16 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now |
Could you clarify why this is not fully compliant? It looks perfect to me, and even the pp gem is a double letter...
|
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 10:21 | history | edited | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
even less characters
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 10:12 | history | edited | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more calculations
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 10:06 | history | edited | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more calculations
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 9:36 | history | edited | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed calculations
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 9:34 | history | rollback | SztupY |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 9:31 | history | edited | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
better strategy to get to the numbers
|
| Sep 24, 2015 at 16:39 | history | answered | SztupY | CC BY-SA 3.0 |