Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
→Conflict Resolution?
Line 215:
:I wrote a list of reasons concerning when I think it is appropriate to change existing code and why I changed Nigel's version (his 7/9/2012 submission) to which he responded with "A lot of hot air for somthing that doesn't exist!" ignoring ALL of my points and implying that I should have fixed his version: "I was going to restore my version and let you change it". I feel that the criteria that I previously listed are still valid, and despite what Nigel might claim, there are major issues with his version (in terms of Lisp constructs, idioms and formatting) which is why I removed his version, and not because I was being vengeful, as he stated below. His submission is badly written and should be removed. It is that simple. If Nigel would like to change the version written by Ledrug, I feel that he should write a list of valid reasons which can be debated. If the reasons are sound and agreeable, then he be allowed to modify Ledrug's version with one caveat: All of Nigel's Common Lisp submissions have been extremely poorly written and indicative of someone who does not care to either learn or write proper Lisp code, so the submission should be vetted here, on the talk page, before he is allowed to post it on the task page. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::Ledrug replaced your version at 04:55, 19 September 2012, I responded to your explanation at 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC). I accepted that you had undone the changes and explained why I had made them. No mention of 'hot air', the response finished with A mute point now as ledrug has done tha task properly. You made a long response on 23 September. 26th September I responded with "A lot of hot air for somthing that doesn't exist!". If you thought, and I agree with you, that "Ledrug (had already) submitted a single version that was faster than mine (Larry), well-written, and worked for all number bases" what is there to discuss. You have agreed that he replaced your version to "reduce code; simplify; speed up; conform to task and extra". Does this not imply that your code needed improving? Only if you resurect and improve your (rubbish?) version is the subject interesting. I have responded to the issue you have raised regarding my current submission below.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 12:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I can identify three issues, none requiring any particular Lisp knowledge to resolve:
| |||