Anonymous user
Talk:Longest string challenge: Difference between revisions
m
→Conforms to the specs?: ya
m (→Conforms to the specs?: ya) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 104:
:I quite like the rewrite. I wouldn't want to go so far as to add something like <nowiki>{{puzzle}}</nowiki> until we've all had a chance to see how things go with this task; and I think the name puzzle might be so easily miss-used on game tasks we have had in the past, that did not need the distinction. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 05:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
:: Thanks Paddy. I think it needs a wee bit more work. I'm not sure if I should add the change to the main page so people don't miss it or give it a couple of days for feedback here. I also think Puzzle is the wrong name for that reason. It could be a stretch, a challenge, or we could add the word programming to it. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
===Ready to leave Draft?===
The task and talk page seems to have been stable for a while. I'm thinking it's about time to remove draft status. If I don't see more activity, I'm thinking that this should be done at the end of September. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 03:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
==Similar to [[Averages/Mode]]==
Line 143 ⟶ 147:
:::::::: I'm not there yet as I want to hear more. I am beginning to think that the intent isn't being stated in a positive way. Restrictions are by definition negative. What was the original intent here? Really, it was to get people to think outside of their particular box. This problem can be solved very conventionally and that's boring and pedestrian. The point perhaps is in your language of choice how would you solve this creatively showing off some of your language capabilities? This also lets people have a little bit of fun with it. The restrictions could be more guidance/example in this case. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 19:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: If that is is the point, then rather than placing restrictions, just make that point in the task description, and let the implementer make the decision as to how this is best achieved. Maybe say "Demonstrate this creatively showing off some of your language capabilities." [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 07:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: Borrowed from this idea in the last revision. I think there is a good balance between rigid restrictions and anarchy :) --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 14:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: (I find I am enjoying following the discussion and ultimately hope we ''can'' get the 'nuance' right to make this a good task). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 09:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Line 404 ⟶ 411:
for (last = next; *next; next = &next[1]);
}</lang> (I didn't define the LINE_MAX and ACCU_MAX just to be different, it's easier to change the values for testing. They ''are'' related to your <code>bufend</code>). There's still one issue: <code>echo -n "a\naa\naaa"|./a.out</code> fails, which has nothing to do with the modifications I made. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 23:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
::::: The treatment of the <code>echo -n "a\naa\naaa"</code> case depends on the definition of a "line". Since "line" was not defined in the task, I am comfortable saying that that represents an ill-formed file and thus cannot represent a correctness issue. (If I cared about that case, I would exit(1) for any line that did not end with a newline character.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 23:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
== Boring solution v. restrictions ==
Line 415 ⟶ 423:
every write(!L)
end</lang>
== Conforms to the specs? ==
Hoping to confirm that the AHK solution didn't break any rules
: Looks like it meets the spirit just fine. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||