Anonymous user
Talk:Rep-string: Difference between revisions
→Clarification: added a follow-up. -- ~~~~
(→Draft statust: for a while longer?) |
(→Clarification: added a follow-up. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 19:
:::: Yes it is. Repeat "10" twice, then truncate to the original length (which is three), that yields "101". There is nothing in the task description that says the repeat string has to ''appear'' in the result string, as in the case when the string is replicated, then truncated to the original length. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
::::: The task description is not just the first paragraph; if you continue reading, it says the repeating group can't be longer than half the length, from which one may pretty easily infer the intended interpretation of the initial description, seems to me. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]])
:::::: The task description was amended twice after I had entered the REXX version 2 example. With the latest task requirements, 101 isn't a rep-string. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
::By the way, almost all programming examples have incorrect output, showing strings to be non-reps, whilest in fact, they are. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
| |||