Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Uses Algorithm Template: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(Thoughts. Need others' input.) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:::: TBH, TLDNR, and there may have been elements of an SEP field; I'm not so focused on implementation details as end result, so I try to let RC users figure things out. What you're describing with the hierarchy sounds like a simple transformation of what I was thinking, but I'd stop short of forcing the automatic creation of parent tasks when the itch at hand is a particular algorithm or solve a particular scenario. It forces too much empty space too quickly for the few contributors who work at implementing ''everything'', and the site already has a bit of a problem with the number of tasks with unnecessarily-small example sets (A task that doesn't contain a language the viewer is familiar with isn't helpful for comparative purposes.). Does that make sense? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
:::: TBH, TLDNR, and there may have been elements of an SEP field; I'm not so focused on implementation details as end result, so I try to let RC users figure things out. What you're describing with the hierarchy sounds like a simple transformation of what I was thinking, but I'd stop short of forcing the automatic creation of parent tasks when the itch at hand is a particular algorithm or solve a particular scenario. It forces too much empty space too quickly for the few contributors who work at implementing ''everything'', and the site already has a bit of a problem with the number of tasks with unnecessarily-small example sets (A task that doesn't contain a language the viewer is familiar with isn't helpful for comparative purposes.). Does that make sense? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::: Ok, so... as a suggestion or guidline this might work but it should not be rigidly enforced nor implemented as a structural requirement? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
::::: Ok, so... as a suggestion or guidline this might work but it should not be rigidly enforced nor implemented as a structural requirement? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::: As is convenient to create them, I can see it manifesting as a set of "Related tasks" links. "More general forms of this task" "More specific forms of this task" Some of the existing tasks with distinct optional components might easily break out into that latter set. But this isn't a decision I want to make by fiat. I would '''specifically''' like to see some more input from other regular contributors. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 02:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||