Talk:XXXX redacted: Difference between revisions
→overkill implies partial: Implementation detail
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→overkill implies partial: Implementation detail) |
|||
Line 15:
:: I still don't really get it. Redacting "tom", w/p/o "tom" ==> "xxx" for all three, fine. But w/p/o "tomato" ==> "tomato","xxxato","xxxxxx" seems much easier to me (and mutually exclusive) than needing (w+/-o)/(p-o)/(p+o) for the same results. Do you have a counter-example? Actually, I should also have quoted "Overkill redact means if the word contains the redact target, even if is only part of the word, " which kind of (undeniably) backs up my claim. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 12:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
::: Like I said, implementation detail. Apparently you were able to decipher the desired operations. The task '''specifically''' states '''"You are not required to use those, or any abbreviation."''' How you refer to the different operations should have no bearing on how they work. The task header spells out what a Whole word is, what a Partial word is, and what an Overkill operation is. The same operation by a different name is effectively the same operation. Pointless, irrelevant constraints is exactly what makes me aggravated with some other tasks. You made your nomenclature clear, I don't disagree with it, but I also don't think that is the '''only''' way to get the point across. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 13:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
| |||