Talk:Flatten a list: Difference between revisions

m
Line 89:
:On the meat of your explanation: I do understand that lists can be represented as strings - I went to the trouble of 'stringifying' the tree example to make sure. C, as you pointed out, is the implementation language of many other languages, but an answer where C just called another interpreter would not help the site. I think that most people and most publicly available examples of a list on C would ''not'' base its internal representation on strings - it is a common enough training task and most of the answers will involve dancing pointers and mallocs. Even on Unix. You might also find that although there may outwardly be a relationship between TCL lists and strings, Tcl has made optimisations over the years and internally other, more optimised data structures might be transparently used for better performance (I am unsure of just which data structures are optimised though- maybe others can help me out here). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 02:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:: So sorry for all this buzz; my point was very simple, indeed, and by "vandalization-like" I did not mean there was an intentional real "vandalization", just a replacement made in good faith '''but''' that replaced a perfectly working implementation that had, in my opinion, a better "view" of the task; in these cases (two implementations that looks both right someway), I am for keeping the previous implementation,; and expecially in this case where clearly the new implementation works at a different "level" (the ascii representation of a list, which is usually not so easily manageable as a "binary" representation of a list, which is what "we" usually have when we need a list). I would keep the "ascii solution" too, or maybe we should have more task doing smart manipulations on strings. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 10:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)