Talk:Long literals, with continuations: Difference between revisions

 

: Somethings are implied, such a list (or a literal containing a list) was shown what it should contain, a list of words (names or tokens) that were indeed, chemical elements, and it even had a partial example of what was expected.   The literal was to contain a   ''list''   of element names and was to be a character string stored in a variable,   and have just one space between the element names (in the final form).   If this wasn't clear, it could be changed by anyone who can express this better than I, as it seems, not everyone understood what was meant.   A '''list''' means different things to different people, based on what computer programming language is being used.   This example clearly shown the names of the first few elements with no capitalization.   The task never said anything about "reading" into memory,   but from my use of the word,   I wouldn't have used "read" but "assigned/defined/set/initialized/or somesuch".   as one would assign a literal to a variable which contained a list of words.   I am aware that some computer programming languages define a '''list''' differently, and with this in mind, I tried to define a list by example.   I had intentionally stated that the most idiomatic approach should be used in creating the list   (when it would eventually be stored/created as the finalized list as being used/utilized by the computer program).   I tried to use general terms as each language has their own definitions and verbiage for such things.   A '''list''' in one language may be defined (somewhat completely) different in another language, and I tried to make it clear that the list was a literal (character) string of blank-delineated words (chemical elements).   Since this is a wiki, you are free to add/clarify what was meant.   If one were to add other information to the list   (the element symbol, atomic number, other isotopes, specific gravity, half-life if radioactive, alternate spellings, date of discovery, etc),   it would make comparisons of computer programming languages harder and possibly even obfuscated, and be in keeping with the Rosetta Code, er, ... tradition.   Believe it or not, the whole point was to make the list as simple (and pure) as possible (and show how a computer programming language handles literals that don't "fit" on a single (source) line (and possibly use some form of continuations showing a multi-line assignment),   and not have the list embellished to the point it would be hard to compare it to other programming solutions.   Sometimes, the most simple thing is hard to describe such that each computer programming language does the same thing, or at least, a similar thing or process.   I would prefer to have the program simplified to address/adhere (to) the task's requirements and example, and if you feel that your entry better shows off the languages capabilities, then you could add the current version as an enhanced/embellished version.   Calling the stated rules "imaginary" doesn't help the discussion here on Rosetta Code or facilitate compromises.   I'm trying to be civil here and address your concerns, but at least try to solve the task in the spirit it was created,   or even possibly just mimic what other solutions have done.   The ''elements in memory'' as you put it was not meant to be elements of an array (which can be thought of as a ''list'',   but part of a literal ("stored" in a literal with intervening blanks between element names).   Your contributions are always welcome here, but refusing to change (simplify) your entry is rather surprising.   You also have seemed to miss the whole point of this task, it was not to just "quote a string".     -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)