Anonymous user
Talk:Anonymous recursion: Difference between revisions
→Clarity needed - Confusion between task and examples: I vote for clarify
(→Clarity needed - Confusion between task and examples: Abu what did you mean?) |
(→Clarity needed - Confusion between task and examples: I vote for clarify) |
||
Line 220:
:: Your observation of "not polluting the global name space" seems to me to be spot on on how this is being interpreted and implemented. But I'm not certain that I know enough about the task author's intent to say. That raises the question, should the task be changed? Clarified? Renamed? Both? Should implementations be marked incorrect? Given the number of solutions in place, the last choice is not one I'd take. If the intent was missed change the task and if desired create a draft with a better description of the intent with clearer guidelines. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 23:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::: This was created by Abu in November - can you way in.
:::: Well, the author listed 3 disadvantages, the first two are about the namespace issue; the third one is, IMO, bogus, because immediately after saying "interrupting program flow", the Y combinator is suggested, which interrupts code flow like there's no tomorrow. I think most examples are fine, although some are doing the task for the task's sake (such as the Go Y combinator solution) with no practical benefit. As it stands, maybe only a few examples need to be marked incorrect, while others do show some useful techniques. It never hurts to clarify the task, though. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||