Talk:Longest increasing subsequence: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Splitting in two subtasks?: new section) |
(→Splitting in two subtasks?: Do we need to?) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
? |
? |
||
--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 09:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 09:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
: Are you going to take the effort to work out what all the existing solutions are supposed to be categorised as? Or take the effort to locate descriptions of the algorithms of sufficient quality to allow implementation generally? (I say that because the description on Wikipedia of the LIS algorithm is poor.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 10:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:54, 19 August 2013
Naming the methods
In order to avoid long subsection titles, I suggest:
- not mentioning the programming language again
- using dynamic programming and patience sorting as names
--Grondilu (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Grondilu, I would want to mention at least an abbreviation of the language name in my subheadings directly below my header line as that way if someone makes an edit later, the Summary points directly at the language+sub-heading, making it easier to locate an edit on a large page. --Paddy3118 (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Splitting in two subtasks?
What about splitting this in:
? --Grondilu (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to take the effort to work out what all the existing solutions are supposed to be categorised as? Or take the effort to locate descriptions of the algorithms of sufficient quality to allow implementation generally? (I say that because the description on Wikipedia of the LIS algorithm is poor.) –Donal Fellows (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)