Talk:Ranking methods: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Split?: no, I think) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Split?== |
==Split?== |
||
Should this task be split into five small tasks? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC) |
Should this task be split into five small tasks? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Don't think so, since there's so much commonality between the subtasks that can be factored out, for instance, all the tier logic. It also nicely shows the similarities and differences between the subtasks. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 03:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Ruby all-in-one solution== |
==Ruby all-in-one solution== |
||
Revision as of 03:21, 27 August 2014
Split?
Should this task be split into five small tasks? --Paddy3118 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Don't think so, since there's so much commonality between the subtasks that can be factored out, for instance, all the tier logic. It also nicely shows the similarities and differences between the subtasks. --TimToady (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ruby all-in-one solution
The Ruby solution doesn't meet the task requirements and I marked it incorrect but, it would be acceptable if it were preceded by an example "...that apply one, each, of the following ranking methods...". You could then keep the current version with an explanation of how it differs from the spec, but is nonetheless interesting. --Paddy3118 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)