Talk:Verhoeff algorithm: Difference between revisions
→Omitted algorithm
(→Omitted algorithm: More comments.) |
|||
Line 11:
:::That's all very well but what if I had made a blunder when trying to describe the algorithm and people had relied on it? I'm not a cryptographic expert or particularly good at explaining things, but presumably the people who write these articles for Wikipedia are. Moreover, the lack of an explanation in the task description doesn't seem to have stopped people, including yourself, from submitting correct solutions. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
::::And, I myself have not written that length description. But it's still possible, and a good idea. And, omitting it is bad practice. Maybe someone else will step up here? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 18:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
::"lengthy and needless repetition..." I resemble that remark. I usually try to err on the side of too much information rather than not enough. Not 100% of the time but pretty darn often. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
| |||