Talk:Odd word problem: Difference between revisions
→Recap and moving on...: new section
No edit summary |
(→Recap and moving on...: new section) |
||
Line 46:
::Thank you for that link! It was interesting to see details of the problem as originally posed, interesting to see the context, and fun to translate, compile, and run the final solution given there. —[[User:Sonia|Sonia]] 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Welcome, I found it quite helpful to see where it came from and what had changed. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 02:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
== Recap and moving on... ==
This task instead of being a normal task (which asks us to accomplish something) is currently specifying *how* we achieve that end. Specifically, it asks us to buffer a sequence of characters implicitly and not explicitly. Personally, I think that this kind of task bends the spirit of rosettacode: operations that can be implicit in one language may need to be explicit in another.
So, I propose that we bend the task, to compensate. Specifically: I propose that when a task forbids certain programming constructs and mandates others, that this be allowed in support code which is not a part of the task implementation itself (in other words: link to the support code but do not include it on the task page). This should ideally be generalized utility code which emulates facilities used in "acceptable" solutions, but I do not think it's fair (or even possible) to mandate that for the general case of tasks which step over the line from specifying the ends to specifying the means.
(Specifically, in this case, I would want to implement co-routines and character-at-a-time streams, for J. But in general we are supposed to be allowing "best effort" implementations, and not requiring specific language semantics.)
Unless someone has a better idea? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||