Talk:Five weekends: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 03:24, 14 November 2011

Mods to task description

I thought we needed the total number of months within the range as well as stating how much to print, as a minimum to allow people to compare different implementations for accuracy. --Paddy3118 07:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike(Mwn3d), the changes I have made have invalidated the Java solution. Have I gone to far? --Paddy3118 07:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already fixed so nope :). --Mwn3d 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the task was inspired by this blog post: http://lovehateubuntu.blogspot.com/2010/10/5-weekends.html --Michael Mol 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A clarification on task #3 (Show at least the first and last five dates, in order):

Task #1 .. (show ALL months...) which would seem to preclude item #3, unless
task #3 (dates) would've wanted the dates of the first and last five weekends, not just the months.
Since nobody else took my interpretation of "dates", I didn't include that version of a date. Gerard Schildberger

Item #1 in The task uses the term "full weekends" meaning Friday+Saturday+Sunday, but it may be misinterpreted to include months with 5 Saturday+Sunday+Monday in the solution (example, October 2011) --Antonio Bueno 10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Improve C?

Surely this can be solved without relying on an external command. (For EMBee, by --Paddy3118 07:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)).

thanks, but what's wrong with the improve tag? it helps people looking at the language page to see which solutions could be improved. --eMBee 08:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi EMBee, you are right. they are using the ncal external Unix command rather than a C library. I didn't look into it enough. I'll revert back to your edit. Sorry. --Paddy3118 08:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Given Ledrugs' invitation to delete, from his comment on the removal of the improve tag of "this example does not need improvement: it was deliberately written so. If you think it's too devious, delete it." I am inclined to either leave it with a notice to improve it, or delete it as the solution does not aid language comparison for this straight-forward task. What do others (Including Ledrug), think? --Paddy3118 03:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:28, 6 November 2011 (view source) rosettacode>Paddy3118 (→‎Improve C?: EMBee is right.) ← Older edit		Revision as of 03:24, 14 November 2011 (view source) rosettacode>Paddy3118 (→‎Improve C?: Still needs improvement?) Newer edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:

	::Hi EMBee, you are right. they are using the [http://www.unix.com/man-page/freebsd/1/ncal/ ncal] external Unix command rather than a C library. I didn't look into it enough. I'll revert back to your edit. Sorry. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] 08:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)		::Hi EMBee, you are right. they are using the [http://www.unix.com/man-page/freebsd/1/ncal/ ncal] external Unix command rather than a C library. I didn't look into it enough. I'll revert back to your edit. Sorry. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] 08:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

			Given Ledrugs' invitation to delete, from his comment on the removal of the improve tag of ''"this example does not need improvement: it was deliberately written so. If you think it's too devious, delete it."'' I am inclined to either leave it with a notice to improve it, or delete it as the solution does not aid language comparison for this straight-forward task. What do others (Including Ledrug), think? --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] 03:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)