Talk:Calendar: Difference between revisions

Line 18:
While generating a particular year is fine, a Real Programmer would not have written their calendar generator to handle arbitrary widths of display. Instead, it would have either produced for 132-char wide line printers or 80-char wide terminals. In this day and age, nobody's got line printers any more so formatting for an 80-char terminal is what we must put up with. Given that, I propose that the task should state that the calendar should be tested by generating a calendar for the current year suitable for an 80-column device. Adaptation to other widths, other years and other languages are all to be extra-credit items. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
: Note also that the 132-column requirement would fit entirely within the scope of the dual [[CALENDAR]] task. :-) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 08:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 
 
== Ruby incomplete? ==
The Ruby example has a template over it calling it "incomplete" because it doesn't print variable widths. But
the task says "ideally", which suggests to me that it is optional. [[User:Fwend|Fwend]] 16:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous user