Talk:Teacup rim text
Limiting output
It seems that there could be a lot of output generated - maybe alter the wording to ask for example words and maybe summaries of words found of particular lengths? --Paddy3118 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to use a common (available) dictionary (so we could compare results). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
A good task description specifies a problem rather than a procedure
The real task/problem here is to identify and display a subset of words (in a given lexicon) that are 'circular' in the sense which you describe.
The current formulation (para 3) is the narration of a procedure, rather than the statement of a problem or task, and is perhaps not yet quite consistent with the Rosetta Code goal (see the landing page) of aiding a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another.
(Not all languages or techniques of code composition are built around a notion of 'procedure'. In the traditions (and even architectures) of Lisp, Scheme, Racket, Prolog, ML, Haskell etc, the process of evaluation is central).
More productive, in the Rosetta Code context, to just state the problem, leave the technique of its solution to the contributors, and let a hundred flowers bloom. Hout (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
should programming solutions be assuming caseless words?
I know the specified dictionary of words (now) to be used has no uppercase letters (or any words with non-letters), but should (or could) it be assumed for the general case that the words are to be treated as caseless (that is, the case [upper/lower/mixed] is to be ignored? I would think that general solutions would be implemented and not have the computer program solutions be geared to a specific dictionary. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)