Anonymous user
Talk:Box the compass: Difference between revisions
→Why C needs fixing: why it needs not
(→Why C needs fixing: why it needs not) |
|||
Line 60:
==Why C needs fixing==
Hi Ledrug. If you follow this link copied from the task description: [[wp:Boxing the compass|box the compass]] to the wp article it shows the original table. Note that the last index wraps around to 1. There is no 33. If you then check the note part of the task description, the pseudo code incorporates a modulo on the index. I do make mistakes, and I try and learn from them when I make them, but I believe that I legitimally flagged a problem with the C code as presented. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 05:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
: For one, the indices are just row count, nothing more, becuase there's no legitimate reason to associate numbers to cardinal directions, that's what the names are for. If you want a numeric representation of directions, maybe you should consider using, I don't know, degrees? Secondly, the wp table may justify wrapping table indices around, because its first row centers on 0 while last row centers on 360, which are really the same direction. Numbers here are slightly off center, I don't see why one should give the impression 354.38 is the same as 0 by forcing the last row index to 1 ("just because a table on WP wraps"? Please.) You want to know the direction, read the second column. I don't care what the pseudo code in the task does: translating degrees into direction names should not depend on that. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 05:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||