Talk:Narcissist: Difference between revisions
Isn't using $ARGV[0] cheating?
(too restrictive?) |
(Isn't using $ARGV[0] cheating?) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
0
:But I also think that perhaps the original definition is too restrictive; rather than ''specifically'' returning "0" or "1" or "accept" or "reject", I think it would be better to use whatever makes sense for the chosen language. For example, the ALGOL 68 example returns "T" or "F". -- [[User:Eriksiers|Erik Siers]] 16:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:: Note that the above invocations seem to violate the specification (since they would require reading a file from disk instead of from standard input). A command line which would not violate the specification would probably look like this: <code>narcissist <narcissist.src</code> --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Yeah, thought of that, but :shrug:. Incidental to the output side, methinks. :-)
:::Anyway, I vote for loosening the task specification somewhat, in the manner I said above. -- [[User:Eriksiers|Erik Siers]] 17:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
==Using $0==
Using the representation of the code in the file system or in memory, with $ARGV[0] or equivalent, as done in the python solution, is cheating imho. It should be explicitly excluded in the instructions.--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
| |||