KingRat_1 wrote:

no support
not sure how this would work or where itd be necessary.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Seems a little too complex and vague for scratch

(similarity between () and ())

KingRat_1 wrote:

no support
not sure how this would work or where itd be necessary.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

Seems a little too complex and vague for scratch

(what % of () and () are the same::operators)

(same letters in () and ()::operators)

(same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators)

(length of (same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators))

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(what % of () and () are the same::operators)

i support if its like this. much clearer

maybe it could also be

(same letters in () and ()::operators)

and it would return what letters both strings contain. so something like

(same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators)

would return heo

then you could get the amount of letters by doing

(length of (same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators))

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(what % of () and () are the same::operators)

i support if its like this. much clearer

maybe it could also be

(same letters in () and ()::operators)

and it would return what letters both strings contain. so something like

(same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators)

would return heo

then you could get the amount of letters by doing

(length of (same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators))

i still think this is much better

ajskateboarder wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(what % of () and () are the same::operators)

i support if its like this. much clearer

maybe it could also be

(same letters in () and ()::operators)

and it would return what letters both strings contain. so something like

(same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators)

would return heo

then you could get the amount of letters by doing

(length of (same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators))

i still think this is much better

I do agree with the first reporter you gave (though it might be weird to translate it into other languages) but the others kind of miss the point. Those are comparatively easier to workaround.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(what % of () and () are the same::operators)

i support if its like this. much clearer

maybe it could also be

(same letters in () and ()::operators)

and it would return what letters both strings contain. so something like

(same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators)

would return heo

then you could get the amount of letters by doing

(length of (same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators))

i still think this is much better

I do agree with the first reporter you gave (though it might be weird to translate it into other languages) but the others kind of miss the point. Those are comparatively easier to workaround.

i dont, its too specific to be used. my version has more use cases and provides a more intuitive return

ajskateboarder wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(what % of () and () are the same::operators)

i support if its like this. much clearer

maybe it could also be

(same letters in () and ()::operators)

and it would return what letters both strings contain. so something like

(same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators)

would return heo

then you could get the amount of letters by doing

(length of (same letters in (hello) and (how are you)::operators))

i still think this is much better

I do agree with the first reporter you gave (though it might be weird to translate it into other languages) but the others kind of miss the point. Those are comparatively easier to workaround.

i dont, its too specific to be used. my version has more use cases and provides a more intuitive return

I'll include it in the OP for reference, but what does your reporter do that the current one doesn't?

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

the new version seems to just be mine with length of
why not have mine, it allows that and more

(length of (same letters in [cat] and [act] ::operators)) // 3
(length of (different letters in [cat] and [act] ::operators)) // 0
(# of edits between [cat] and [act] ::operators) // 2

ajskateboarder wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

the new version seems to just be mine with length of
why not have mine, it allows that and more

At this point, the two blocks report different information, so I have just decided to include both

(length of (same letters in [cat] and [act] ::operators)) // 3
(length of (different letters in [cat] and [act] ::operators)) // 0
(# of edits between [cat] and [act] ::operators) // 2

Assuming that's how it would behave

((length of [text]) - (length of (same letters in [text] and [foo]::operators)))

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

the new version seems to just be mine with length of
why not have mine, it allows that and more

At this point, the two blocks report different information, so I have just decided to include both

(length of (same letters in [cat] and [act] ::operators)) // 3
(length of (different letters in [cat] and [act] ::operators)) // 0
(# of edits between [cat] and [act] ::operators) // 2

Assuming that's how it would behave

((length of [text]) - (length of (same letters in [text] and [foo]::operators)))

roofogato wrote:

Actually, support. At least for the text simaliarity thing. I can imagine it being useful for a game I'm working on RN. Very useful

(The () item most similar to [] in [list v]::list)

(The () closest item to [] from [list v]::list)

(Closest to [text] in [list v]