Category talk:C1R: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Should Rosetta Code delete every C1R solution?) |
(→Stupid) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: Should Rosetta Code delete every C1R solution? --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
: Should Rosetta Code delete every C1R solution? --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
: this one is a bit closer to clever than [[C0H]]. it could evolve into a rosettacode testing tool. possibly even with support for multiple languages. as such it would have a place here, however, i would not call it a language. |
|||
: instead it could e a task: ''write a tool that downloads the solution to a given task in a given language, displays the source and asks the user to run it: (yes/no).''--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 02:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:47, 22 November 2011
Stupid
This means that nearly every C1R "solution" in Rosetta is simply a heading, followed by string which gives the path name to the C solution.
This is a form of redudnancy that is effectively spam.
- David St. Hubbins: It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh...
- Nigel Tufnel: Clever.
- David St. Hubbins: Yeah, and clever.
192.139.122.42 22:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Should Rosetta Code delete every C1R solution? --Kernigh 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- this one is a bit closer to clever than C0H. it could evolve into a rosettacode testing tool. possibly even with support for multiple languages. as such it would have a place here, however, i would not call it a language.
- instead it could e a task: write a tool that downloads the solution to a given task in a given language, displays the source and asks the user to run it: (yes/no).--eMBee 02:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)