reinstatement of HTML comments from the Perl 6 entry
The Perl 6 entry has the comment:
This is an incredibly inefficient way of finding prime numbers.
The original (two) HTML comments that I added were:
The counting of primes (or finding of primes) was included in this task as a verification of the totient function's ability to detect a prime, not to provide a method to find a prime --- it's an artifact of the function. But, slow as it is, it's not as slow as the AKS test for primes. Perhaps this could be moved to the discussion page if the efficiency is talk-worthy topic. -- Gerard Schildberger.
Another HTML comment that was deleted had to do with another statement:
Also, the task requirements haven't shifted, they were clarified as at least one person failed to understand the 3rd requirement (please view the original wording). If you think this one change constitutes an every-shifting change in the requirements, please feel free to revert the change. I implore you to try to not add snipes (to the history log that can't be deleted). I value your comments, but not so much when they're detrimental to the editing of a Rosetta Code task preamble, and comments that aren't constructive. This is, after all, a draft task. Better to change the wording now then later. Adding clarification isn't shifting the requirements, I tried to make the sentence structure clearer to understand. I felt that an edification for a task's requirement was needed as it apparently didn't effectively convey what was needed to be marked (as a prime).
I think putting these restored comments here where they belong will aid us to come to an understanding why the indicating and/or counting of primes using the totient function was used as a verification process, and was not meant or implied to be used as a general way to find and/or count primes. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)