I'm working on modernizing Rosetta Code's infrastructure. Starting with communications. Please accept this time-limited open invite to RC's Slack.. --Michael Mol (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:XXXX redacted

From Rosetta Code

overkill implies partial[edit]

Whole/Partial/Overkill are mutually exclusive with no overlap at all. The statement `E.G. "Whole word, Overkill" should be theoretically be exactly the same as "Whole word"` does not make sense and should be deleted, and the options become

  • Whole word
  • Whole word, Case insensitive
  • Partial word
  • Partial word, Case insensitive
  • Overkill word
  • Overkill word, Case insensitive

--Pete Lomax (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It depends on how you define overlap. IMO, the only thing in that phrase that is even somewhat questionable is the word "theoretically".
I was trying to anticipate questions here asking: "What is the difference between 'Whole word' and 'Whole word, overkill'? they should be exactly the same." The way I envision it, Whole word is a "finding" operation and Overkill is a "replacing" operation so there isn't really overlap, it's just that the normal result of Whole word IS effectively "overkill". But that's just my view. I don't want to unnecessarily constrain other authors / languages. How you, as a example author, choose to construct your logic is completely besides the point. I see that more as an implementation detail. The task is to get the job done. How you do it is up to you. --Thundergnat (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I still don't really get it. Redacting "tom", w/p/o "tom" ==> "xxx" for all three, fine. But w/p/o "tomato" ==> "tomato","xxxato","xxxxxx" seems much easier to me (and mutually exclusive) than needing (w+/-o)/(p-o)/(p+o) for the same results. Do you have a counter-example? Actually, I should also have quoted "Overkill redact means if the word contains the redact target, even if is only part of the word, " which kind of (undeniably) backs up my claim. --Pete Lomax (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, implementation detail. Apparently you were able to decipher the desired operations. The task specifically states "You are not required to use those, or any abbreviation." How you refer to the different operations should have no bearing on how they work. The task header spells out what a Whole word is, what a Partial word is, and what an Overkill operation is. The same operation by a different name is effectively the same operation. Pointless, irrelevant constraints is exactly what makes me aggravated with some other tasks. You made your nomenclature clear, I don't disagree with it, but I also don't think that is the only way to get the point across. --Thundergnat (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Now that you've had a fortnight to subconsciously dwell on this, can I politely ask you to reconsider whether "Whole word, overkill" is simply nonsense. When you ask "What is the difference between 'Whole word' and 'Whole word, overkill'? they should be exactly the same", my thoughts are still "Eh?", either it is whole word and there is no overkill, or there is some overkill and therefore it is not the same as whole word. --Pete Lomax (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary output[edit]

The Go/Perl/RAKU/Wren examples add "\n'Tis very tomish, don't you think?\n\n" to the task, whereas AppleScript/Julia//Phix/Tailspin/REXX do not. The extra text/blank lines make it much more difficult to compare the outputs, while adding nothing, and should be removed --Pete Lomax (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

while adding nothing
I disagree. The "extra" line specifically exercises and demonstrates the "Extra kudos for not including adjoining punctuation during "Overkill" redaction." task guideline, which isn't part of the base task but an "above and beyond" goal. There is a pretty long history of task implementers including some minor extra testing to demonstrate their implemetations capabilities. If it offends you so much, perhaps you should have some harsh words for the author of these task implementations that all supply more than strictly required. Note: I am not advocating that they be modified, just pointing out the cognitive dissonance that it is ok for some tasks, but not for others. Removed text restored. --Thundergnat (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not about going above and beyond, of course I'm fine with that.
It is about making the [initial] output more difficult to read.
If you think the oputput of any of those examples (nice list btw) could be improved or made clearer in any way, let me know.
Anyway, since I am never going to convince you, good thing there's a one-click undo, eh? --Pete Lomax (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)