Talk:Pangram checker: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Pangram checker – undiscussed deletion (JavaScript) June 5 2016) |
m (added a section header to the first topic to properly place the table-of-contents (TOC) --- (this happens more often than one would think).) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== solution for ActionScript? == |
|||
How about this for the same algorithm as the current ActionScript solution, but coded in a saner manner? |
How about this for the same algorithm as the current ActionScript solution, but coded in a saner manner? |
||
Latest revision as of 15:22, 20 August 2019
solution for ActionScript?
How about this for the same algorithm as the current ActionScript solution, but coded in a saner manner?
<lang ActionScript>function pangram(k:string):Boolean {
var lowerK:String = k.toLowerCase();
var has:Object = {}
for (var i:Number=0; i<=k.length-1; i++) {
has[lowerK.charAt(i)] = true;
}
var result:Boolean = true;
for (var ch:String='a'; ch <= 'z'; ch=String.fromCharCode(ch.charCodeAt(0)+1)) {
result = result && has[ch]
}
return result || false;
}</lang> -- Markjreed 20:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Since the current implementation admits being barbaric, why not. --Ledrug 20:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Undiscussed deletion (JavaScript) June 5 2016
- I notice that a JavaScript example was deleted without discussion on 5 June 2016.
- Addition is generally preferable to deletion, particularly where approaches diverge, but more importantly, proposed deletions do need to be motivated and explained here on the discussion page.
- Unless there are objections, I propose to restore the alternative version, so that readers are allowed see both approaches Hout (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)