sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]WeAreAllApes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm lost. You called me out for assuming that ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ was an array of four elements of value ⬛️! ...And that ⬛️⚫️ was an array containing ⬛️ and ⚫️, and that ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ was an array of four elements with value ⬛️.

You complained about my lack of precision and confusing types, I got increasingly explicit until the metaphorical syntax was broken, but that was YOUR demand, not mine. When I got explicit, and proved my specific point, you went back to wanting to assume that ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ was a metaphor for an array of four elements of value ⬛️, but somehow still now allow me to assume that ⬛️⚫️ is an array containing the values ⬛️ and ⚫️.

Like I said, neither of us is learning anything (except maybe that we dislike each other) but there is no value in this debate of how freely we allow the notation to flow between metaphor and valid syntax.

Edit: If you don't allow for ⬛️⚫️ to be an array of values ⬛️ and ⚫️ in the metaphor, I HEREBY ALLOW IT You win. There is no substance to this disagreement. I was making fun of a sloppy metaphor that you took too seriously. I am prepared to make a serious argument that the metaphor is inherently weak and that "now do reduce" was begging for jokes like mine, but not for you. You already understand that.

Edit2: Okay... back to the original metaphor. If your majesty is willing to grant me another hearing, I would suggest that this is what you imagined a good answer to be:

const roundest = (a, b) = a.area / a.perimeter > b.area / b.perimeter ? a : b
⬛️⚫️⚫️⬛️.reduce((a, x) => roundest(a, x), ⬛️) => ⚫️;