Anonymous user
Talk:Determine if a string is collapsible: Difference between revisions
Talk:Determine if a string is collapsible (view source)
Revision as of 21:08, 8 June 2020
, 4 years ago→What does determine mean?: added comments.
(→What does determine mean?: Let me see if I've understood you correctly) |
(→What does determine mean?: added comments.) |
||
Line 58:
:: Quite a creative and innovative approach, if that's right ...
:: It suggests an interesting new Rosetta task, perhaps entitled "List all Rosetta tasks which are not described by their title, excluding this one". (Though obviously, the task requirement itself would be quite different, to avoid contradiction and confusion). [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
::: Hout, I believe (from what I read of your remarks) that you are being deliberately obtuse. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't (or should) expect the title to describe the task. In most cases, the Rosetta Code task does mention what the task is ''about'' however, sometimes in a general way. That is why there is normally a task description (and/or definitions), and why there are usually stated task requirements. An example would be '''long primes'''. That, in itself, does not describe the task. It does, however, suggest that the Rosetta Code task is about ''long primes''. If you're not sure what the task is about, then read the task's preamble and pay particular attention to the task's requirement(s). Failing that, observe the other computer programming examples (entries) and their output. I have no idea how (or why) you are making such foolish assumptions and suggestions, but you are free to make all the whimsical lists at your leisure. Your discourse is not productive and antagonistic in nature. I replied honestly and seriously, taking your query to be meaningful, but you are deliberately misunderstanding what I simply and clearly stated, and staying into something that I did not state nor imply. Perhaps if you could backup a bit and re-read what you posted and reflect on what was written. I cannot take your statements in a meaningful way as you seem to make up fallacious statements of what I previously wrote. If you fail to understand what I wrote, than say that instead of deliberately misunderstanding me and misstating/misinterpreting what I posted. There is no reason to be impolite or be facetious to the point of being absurd. That serves no purpose here. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
| |||