Talk:Pascal's triangle: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:
I think that maybe all example output should follow the task description format of an isosceles triangle. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that maybe all example output should follow the task description format of an isosceles triangle. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:That's not always easy to do. I think the important part of the task is the generation of each row. We don't need to complicate it with output formatting that isn't important to the theory involved. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:That's not always easy to do. I think the important part of the task is the generation of each row. We don't need to complicate it with output formatting that isn't important to the theory involved. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the triangle looks awesome!
-Simen Berge

Revision as of 07:19, 8 April 2010

Right Output Format?

Thw task bdescription says the tringle looks like this:

   1
  1 1
 1 2 1
1 3 3 1

And yet, some examples are showing the easier to construct:

1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1

I think that maybe all example output should follow the task description format of an isosceles triangle. --Paddy3118 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not always easy to do. I think the important part of the task is the generation of each row. We don't need to complicate it with output formatting that isn't important to the theory involved. --Mwn3d 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the triangle looks awesome! -Simen Berge