Anonymous user
Talk:Range modifications: Difference between revisions
m
forced a TOC (for now)
(→Output quotes?: Fill) |
m (forced a TOC (for now)) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
__TOC__
==Consistent with the goals of Rosetta Code ?==
These formulations are charmingly Procrustean and intemperate:
Line 15 ⟶ 19:
I've done similar. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:Sadley I have no problem believing that. Did BoJo involve you in his world beating Covid app? Now -5 and -2 are both integers. Is -5--2 a valid range? How many of the 'hacks' implemented will make your unlucky customer less error prone?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 15:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
On algorithm restriction: RC tasks must be succinct. I can't show huge extensive input but try and restrict this algorithm so it may work with such. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Line 43 ⟶ 48:
:: Should an input of "10-25,1-5,27-30" quietly discard the "1-5"?
:: Is "3-1" a valid and necessary, or illegal and ignore-able or error-inducing input? --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 10:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
==Output quotes? ==
The example needs to be able to parse, modify and output the format. Showing normal language string literals is optional, but used in the task description start case as it more clearly shows the null string.
If your language idiomatically uses brackets or other methods to show string literals then that would be fine too. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 07:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
==Proposal:: Drop the two redundant (and Procrustean) bullet points==
The two Procrustean clauses ("''Solutions '''must''' work by XYZ ...''" "'''''Do not''' use algorithms that XYZ ...''") are redundant and contrary to the aims of Rosetta Code.
Line 60 ⟶ 69:
::: "is done on" – examples ? They may need improvement too.
::: "barred from" (sic) – Where scope is seen for better approaches, variant drafts can illustrate them. There's no place on Rosetta code (the very raison d'etre of which is comparison of alternative approaches) for an appetite for "barring" approaches to solving a problem. Deletionary appetites are better satisfied elsewhere. This is not the place for them. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:::: One way to resolve this dispute might be to simply add a suitably high range, eg
Start with: "13-14,22-22,100000999999-100001000000,100001000003-999999999999"
remove 22 -> "13-14,100000999999-100001000000,100001000003-999999999999"
remove 100000999999 -> "13-14,100001000000-100001000000,100001000003-999999999999"
remove 100001000000 -> "13-14,100001000003-999999999999"
add 100001000001 -> "13-14,100001000001-100001000001,100001000003-999999999999"
add 100001000002 -> "13-14,100001000001-999999999999"
remove 100001000002 -> "13-14,100001000001-100001000001,100001000003-999999999999"
remove 100001000001 -> "13-14,100001000003-999999999999"
:::: That should be enough to deter anyone from using an array of nearly 1,000,000,000,000 bools --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 11:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
::::: Absolutely, that's a much better approach than strutting about in imitation of a dictatorial manner, with comedy bolded proscriptions :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
| |||