FArekkusu,

No one would use the term 'decimal number' if they intended to be that precise in the first place. A 'decimal number' is most commonly referring to a number with a decimal point. If it's referring to any base-10 number, it's already sort-of wrong even though such numbers are part of the decimal system—we have more accurate terms for that.

That the author shouldn't claim that "this is how it works on CW" when his explanation (and possibly understanding) is wrong?

Representing it as an accurate picture of how it works is a different problem than whether it is actually an accurate picture of how it works. This is a fine criticism, but you've moved the goalposts. Additionally, the author never said what you've attributed to him (or her) in your quotation. What the author did say seemed accurate (he never said his calculation method was the way it is done), but if it wasn't, it is probably more helpful to point him to a resource that explains it or explain it yourself than to offer unearned condemnation of his kata idea.

Of course, understanding all of this requires some subtlety. It is neither a criticism nor a compliment when I say I don't see you as a particularly subtle person.

Maybe the solution here is to rename the kata "An alternative calculation of Kata Satisfaction."

I normally agree with your criticisms of kata, but yours is an odd post this time.

This is supposed to be "a floating point number", "not an integer", or anything in the same spirit, but definitely not "decimal".

I agree the phrasing could be made clearer, perhaps by saying something like "All values should be rounded down to the nearest whole number/integer." But even then we are losing the information that the value should not be represented as a decimal.

A "decimal" is very much in the same spirit as 'floating-point number.' A decimal is a representation of any real or integer using a decimal point. A floating-point number is a representation of a decimal number on a computer. Not all languages even use float as a type and in Python you can certainly represent such numbers using the decimal module.

"Not an integer" wouldn't work here. 1.0 is a decimal (and floating-point) representation of the integer 1. 1.0 is not an int, but it is an integer.

That's not how it really works...
This is not it works on CW either...

Okay, but what is the actionable take-away from these criticisms? There are a lot of kata that don't work 'how it really works.'

I agree with your other two criticisms. Specifically:

• What counts as 'irrelevant' should be made clear
• How to actually calculate the results should be specified.

If the answer is a decimal, the answer should be rounded to the whole number

Tests require that the number is specifically rounded down (or floored or truncated). "Rounded to the whole number" is ambiguous.

If there are >= 4 consecutive "Not Satisfied", your function should return “Retired!”

While the Kata Description does specify that bad input should be ignored, it would be clearer if this requirement specified that four consecutive "Not Satisfied" trigger this excluding bad/ignored input. Relatedly, while the kata only gives bad strings as input, it wouldn't hurt to either make that an official constraint or to test for non-string bad input. (This part is not really an issue, just a suggestion.)

I agree that the Kata Description is ambiguous as to whether the set of complaints is complete. It is not explicitly stated that the set is complete rather than exemplary nor is an implication of the same necessitated by anything in the Kata Description.

That line lambda is great. Nice job!

Thank you for marking this as spoiler for me. I try to remember to use the spoiler flag when possible, but this is a UI issue, not a user issue.

I suggest comments should not be visible from the dashboard by default, should only be visible if the user has access to the solution, or comments to solutions should have the spoiler flag enabled by default, possibly allowing the user to disable it or not.

^ is bitwise exclusive or

It compares corresponding bits in two numbers. It sets the corresponding bit in the output to 0 if the two corresponding input bits are the same and 1 if the bits are different.

See: https://wiki.python.org/moin/BitwiseOperators

@FArekkusu

I think it's just another way of stating the issue you raised.

Random tests include function definitions which begin with a digit.

Example:

def 8QPB0Nzjhh(C):
    return C(C - 4)

Identifiers in Python, including function names, cannot begin with a digit.

The real reason is that it wasn't changed two years ago when I made the suggestion...