Talk:Substring primes: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→limit: added a comment.) |
(→limit) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
: By removing the task's limit, you're invalided all but "your" solution. The whole point of Rosetta Code (well, at least one of them) is to compare how different computer programming languages (and programmers) solve the stated problem (the task as stated). Significantly changing the (draft) task's requirements (and/or wording) makes comparing the solutions at this point, pointless. At this time, all but one programming solution uses a limit of some kind. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 10:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
: By removing the task's limit, you're invalided all but "your" solution. The whole point of Rosetta Code (well, at least one of them) is to compare how different computer programming languages (and programmers) solve the stated problem (the task as stated). Significantly changing the (draft) task's requirements (and/or wording) makes comparing the solutions at this point, pointless. At this time, all but one programming solution uses a limit of some kind. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 10:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
::They are not invalid at all, they all give the correct output. Using a limit is a valid way to do it, just not a very smart one. I was only trying to make a rather pedestrian task into something slightly more interesting/challenging, optionally. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:36, 6 April 2021
different than truncatable primes?
How does this differ from truncatable primes?--Nigel Galloway (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a smaller list, it includes substrings that are not truncatable. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
limit
Removed utterly pointless limit of 500. Find 'em all, it's the same output, and encourages a little more thought than for i=1 to 500. --Pete Lomax (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- By removing the task's limit, you're invalided all but "your" solution. The whole point of Rosetta Code (well, at least one of them) is to compare how different computer programming languages (and programmers) solve the stated problem (the task as stated). Significantly changing the (draft) task's requirements (and/or wording) makes comparing the solutions at this point, pointless. At this time, all but one programming solution uses a limit of some kind. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- They are not invalid at all, they all give the correct output. Using a limit is a valid way to do it, just not a very smart one. I was only trying to make a rather pedestrian task into something slightly more interesting/challenging, optionally. --Pete Lomax (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)