Anonymous user
Talk:Run-length encoding: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(→Is built-in on topic?: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
"The output can be anything." might be too open-ended. I would prefer it if all the solutions did it the same way, or something. --[[Special:Contributions/76.167.241.45|76.167.241.45]] 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree. The current description makes comparing language solutions often pointless or misleading. The encoded output should be as described in the given example in the challenge.[[User:Martinfreedman|Martinfreedman]] ([[User talk:Martinfreedman|talk]])
I would prefer this task to use a run length encoding which will work at least on all ASCII characters. The current encoding can't represent [0-9]. A more flexible encoding is implemented [http://wiki.forthfreak.net/index.cgi?RunLengthEncoding here]. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 20 ⟶ 22:
This would make the task (or at least, the solution) ASCII-centric, that is, it wouldn't work for EBCDIC characters, nor ASCII-8 characters. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 17:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The challenge as is, (preferably with a consistent encoded format as in the provided example), is a standard coding challenge used elsewhere. You could say it is a toy RLE rather than the real thing but it does illustrate a language's abilities in list/sequence processing of chars (and/or regex). [[User:Martinfreedman|Martinfreedman]] ([[User talk:Martinfreedman|talk]])
== PowerBASIC format wrong ==
Line 43 ⟶ 47:
--[[User:Zorro1024|Zorro1024]] ([[User talk:Zorro1024|talk]]) 10:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)I added a thin wrapper around a built-in function in Ruby, is showing a built-in on-topic?
:Hi Zorro I'd just like to begin by mentioning that the convention is to add ones signature to the ''end'' of your contribution at that time.
:Chunk seemed quite like the Python groupby example, but on reading the docs on [http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.2/Enumerable.html Ruby chunk], it seems to be marked as deprecated? If it is deprecated you might not want to show an example using it as it could no-longer be thought of as idiomatic Ruby?
:(Signature at end): --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 12:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Paddy, chunk is indeed not deprecated. It has two ways of being used of which one is deprecated, but I use the other. --[[User:Zorro1024|Zorro1024]] ([[User talk:Zorro1024|talk]]) 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
| |||