hi, sorry for the massive delay. can you add the new sample test changes for string ops? this looks good for a merge otherwise.

Yes, that is redundant and ambiguous. I've changed it now.

Awesome kata! Maybe you could put one longer one in the examples, so the tests don't go suddenly from (a)(A)(b)(!!)^S, to ({r*':'}):(:((^:()~((:)*~^)a~*^!!()~^))~*()~^^)~(^a(*~^)*a~*()~^!()~^)a~**^!!^S?

Thanks, and happy new year.

Hey @razetime ; thanks again for the kata and glad to see it got approved;

Just to say that @B4B pointed out on Discord that my English might have been a bit ambiguous above - with "(not your bad description, it's the wiki's fault imho)" I meant of course that "your description is good, but the wiki is bad".

Apologies for any confusion, and looking forward to more of your katas!

This is a bit ambigous. Are invalid commands, commands not mentioned in the command list, or are there also valid commands not mentioned in the command list? I would just state "commands not mentioned .."

Invalid commands not mentioned in the command list must be ignored.

example added

cool, added

Looks fine

i've changed the random tests to mix them together

I've added some tests for ^ in the example tests, if they're ok i'll copy them to the main ones

understood, i hope the description is less ambiguous now.

Fixed tests should test the behaviour of ^ and its interaction with nested parentheses as well; the only place where it's used is in the random tests, and the factorial test will always fail spectacularly (read: impossible to debug) if ^ and () are not implemented exactly as expected.

There are at least several esolang wiki pages on esolangs that are hot garbage when it comes to specifying the specs clearly (e.g Whitespace), and this is also the case.

Nice kata @razetime and interesting esolang!

Just one small suggestion - it's about the behavior of the * concatenation (not your bad description, it's the wiki's fault imho): on the Esolangs Wiki page it states that we have:

* : (x) (y) — (xy)

I found this to be a very stupid way of describing the operation, given that the esolang makes use of ( and ): when I read the above on the wiki, I thought that concatenation meant that if the stack is e.g. ['(x)', '(y)'] then we will obtain ['(xy)'] based on the "merging" of the parentheses in the wiki example.

But in fact this is not what the operation requires; it actually just requires ['(x)(y)'] without merging the parentheses.

So I think a specific example with 2 actual strings would be helpful therefore, it will avoid this confusion.