• wow nearly 3 hours of work could have been reduced to a measely 1 minute. Atleast I know those methods exist now, I just hope I don't forget that they do before the time comes when I actually need to use them.

  • I added the flag for you this time. You can (theoretically) edit your comment until you received an answer. To mark a message with a spoiler flag you just need to tick the box Mark as having spoiler content when editing the message, just above the boxes to publish / cancel.

  • got it amigo. Can you edit comments here? Can't find that option

  • Please use a spoiler flag. Comments are visible from the dashboard.

  • This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • 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."

  • Now I have added the explanation of "irrelevant characters".

  • Description now updated to "floating point number", Decimal does have the potential to make some people misunderstand

  • A "decimal" is very much in the same spirit as 'floating-point number.'

    No. "A decimal number" literally means "a number in base-10 representation". I won't comment on further statements since they're all wrong due to you not understanding this basic idea.

    "Not an integer" wouldn't work here

    "Not an integer" is the only correct way to describe it with the current wording.

    Okay, but what is the actionable take-away from these criticisms?

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

  • 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.
  • "Very Satisfied" vote is equivalent to 100% satisfaction, each "Somewhat Satisfied" vote is equivalent to 50% satisfaction and each "Not Satisfied" vote is equivalent to 0% satisfaction

    That's not how it really works, and this doesn't explain how total satisfaction is calculated.

    If the answer is a decimal

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

    After irrelevant characters are deleted

    What are "irrelevant characters"?


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

    This is not it works on CW either, the satisfaction rating is, obviously, not the same as the kata status, and the overall rule that having 4 "not satisfied" votes in a row means that for an input list like ["Very Satisfied"] * 100 + ["Not Satisfied"] * 4 the expected result us "Retired!" which makes no sense. This is not really a part of the issue, but I decided to mention it here anyway since this is terrible task design.

  • Hi, rowcased.

    I see your solution. I'm sorry I don't know how does it work, and how do I update these test cases?

    Thx a lot.

  • 1.Fixed

    1. Yes, description updated.
  • You're right, fixed now

  • Loading more items...