Talk:Determine if a string is collapsible: Difference between revisions
Talk:Determine if a string is collapsible (view source)
Revision as of 21:41, 29 November 2019
, 4 years ago→How strict are the requirements?: I'm sure that somehow this will be mischaracterized as incivility...
m (→How strict are the requirements?: struck a word, added a word.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→How strict are the requirements?: I'm sure that somehow this will be mischaracterized as incivility...) |
||
Line 18:
::: This task requirements explicitly states to use the (following) five test strings (at least), it didn't mention any others that had to be used. Nowhere does the task requirements require that one has to use the string(s) that were used as examples shown in the task's preamble (but you are free to use them as well if you want, along with any others that you want). If you are misunderstanding or misreading the task's requirements, please re-read what is in the task requirements section. If there is a problem of understanding or interpreting the task's requirements, this is the place to work it out. It would also help to state specifically what example(s) you think weren't used by the REXX's entry from those five specifically mentioned in the task's requirements. Please note that the REXX example did use the five test strings as per the task's requirements. Also, please refrain from posting your categorizations of someone else's comments, this is becoming somewhat rash and not what I expect from people using Rosetta Code. If anything, I was hoping that some of the concerns I raised would discussed or even addressed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
::::<blockquote><Gerard>: This task requirements explicitly states to use the (following) five test strings (at least),</blockquote>
::::<blockquote><thundergnat>: If somebody posts an example that works correctly, but doesn't use the 5 required example strings from the task description, should the entry be marked incorrect?</blockquote>
::::<blockquote><Gerard>: removed bogus flagging as all five strings were indeed used...</blockquote>
::::<blockquote><Gerard>:(later) corrected an input field string in the program...</blockquote>
::::As it turns out the required five strings '''were not''' used. My marking the entries incomplete was '''not wrong''' despite your disparaging comments when you removed the "incorrect" markup. But somehow it is '''I''' that is made out to be the uncivil one. Pot, let me introduce you to kettle. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 21:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
::::I've just had a look at it and the problem seems to be that the third example string should end with "7777888" but the corresponding example in the REXX entry ends with "77788". The 'squeezable' task has a similar discrepancy. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 18:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
| |||