Talk:Range modifications: Difference between revisions
→Consistent with the goals of Rosetta Code ?
Line 29:
:Your not stating that you don't understand the requested format. You want to ignore it. If the task asks for JSON, don't produce XML. If it states the sequence format should be produced as part of the task and a solution instead gives something else with a glib comment that the requested format could be produced with a slight change then why not complete the task?
:::You're not specifying an output format in those two shouty clauses with bold lettering ("''Solutions '''must''' work by XYZ ...''" "'''''Do not''' use algorithms that XYZ ...''")
:::(Consistent output formats in problem solutions are fine and useful, no one disputes that).
:::What is not constructive, and not consistent with the aims of Rosetta Code, is to be intemperately Procrustean about the ''routes'' to that solution. Rosetta is about discovering alternative approaches, not about awarding oneself the pleasure of chopping them off. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 11:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:Coding does tend to need precision. Finding wriggle-room often takes experience and interpersonal skills, and might not materialise. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 07:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:::"''Coding does tend to need precision''" Completely irrelevant. Your proscriptions have nothing to do with "precision". You are taking a machete to the variety of approaches on a website which is explicitly dedicated to the variety of approaches.
::: The role of a setter is to frame a problem and specify an output. Not to meddle in the middle and take an axe to unexpected approaches [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 11:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
:: So, should the output have quotes? On the start range only but not on subsequent results?
| |||