This post is hidden. It was deleted 2 years ago by user45941.

Python 3.8 (pre-release), 62 bytes (non-competing)
62 UTF-8 bytes, 62 chars
lambda x:{*[y.count(C)for C	in	(y:=x)]}!={*[2.]}##!2bcdfilmrtu
Try it online!

Just for fun, a solution that is itself a "List of Noah".

Share Edit Follow Undelete (1) Flag
edited Jul 8 '19 at 9:54
answered Jul 8 '19 at 9:30

negative seven
2,011 1 gold badge 6 silver badges 19 bronze badges

7
While fun, this breaks the rules by not being a serious contender. –
Adám
 Jul 8 '19 at 9:32

It would be great if it were a common rule of this challenge to make code list-of-noahish. Pretty nice twist. I think you can add some extra comment in the title like [list of Noah truthy] to protect yourself from fun fighters and seriosity defenders. –
Daniil Tutubalin
 Jul 8 '19 at 9:51

@DaniilTutubalin Good idea. –
negative seven
 Jul 8 '19 at 9:55

3
@DaniilTutubalin There is very strong consensus to warn non-serious contenders, and then delete if the author has not corrected the answer given reasonable time to do so. Note that this answer actually falls under the label deliberately invalid, and wouldn't even require waiting, but we're being unusually nice about this one because it is fun. –
Adám
 Jul 8 '19 at 10:05

6
@Adám For code golf, e.g., this is limited to answers that do not even attempt to golf the code. Answers that are simply poorly golfed are not invalid. This answer is definitely well golfed and also introduces additional restriction of being list-of-Noah-truthy, which makes it even stronger contender than other solutions. So this rule does not apply here. –
Daniil Tutubalin
 Jul 8 '19 at 10:10

4
@DaniilTutubalin No, removing comments is an obvious way to shorten code, so it isn't well-golfed. And one cannot just make up restricted-source requirements on a pure code-golf challenge and claim superiority based on that. If the author of this answer wants to do so, they may ask the challenge author to (or for permission to) post such a challenge. –
Adám
 Jul 8 '19 at 10:13

2
@negativeseven Marking an answer as non-competing does not exempt it from being invalid. –
Adám
 Jul 8 '19 at 10:15

1
@Adám this applies to rule 2 only. –
Daniil Tutubalin
 Jul 8 '19 at 10:16

@Adám ok, answer is poorly golfed (there's a way to make it shorter), but the attempt to golf it has been done. So Rule 3 does not apply here. –
Daniil Tutubalin
 Jul 8 '19 at 10:26

@DaniilTutubalin The author himself has qualified that rule to be universal: "The only exception to this rule is using a programming language (or a feature thereof) that was implemented after the challenge was posted." (However, using post-dated languages was later allowed, so there are no more exceptions, afaict.) –
Adám
 Jul 8 '19 at 10:34

Proposal: Adding difficulty to the challenge is allowed –
Daniil Tutubalin
 Jul 8 '19 at 11:08

5
I think the best way to satisfy everybody: put 2 solutions in one answer, one is competing and follows specs, another is with extra restriction followed. –
Daniil Tutubalin
 Jul 8 '19 at 11:46

@DaniilTutubalin But +15/-11 is definitely reliable consensus. –
Adám
 Jul 8 '19 at 16:04

4
@Adám IMO, having a self-imposed restricted-source requirement is more akin to using a different language. There is a serious attempt to golf here, but he's not golfing Python 3.8 per se, but rather a subset of it governed by the restricted source. I see nothing wrong with this answer. –
Conor O'Brien
 Jul 8 '19 at 20:46

2
Serious contenders do not contain superfluous code codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10836/34718 –
mbomb007
 Jul 8 '19 at 21:24

I find the consensus in the link mbomb007 pointed two above clear and have therefore flagged this for deletion. –
The Fifth Marshal
 Sep 18 '19 at 23:47

I'm temporarily deleting this answer in accordance with our policy on invalid answers as it is not a serious contender. Feel free to fix the issues and flag it for undeletion. –
user45941
 Oct 1 '19 at 4:38