Talk:Substring primes: Difference between revisions
→limit
(→limit) |
(→limit) |
||
Line 19:
::: The REXX entry <u>does</u> give the correct output. Apart from your characterization of how (and what) the REXX entry counts as primality testing, and I (as the sole author of the REXX entry) shouldn't be accused of being blatantly lying; I didn't considering the elimination of various numbers using digit-wise filtering as a primality test, but I don't want to get into useless and/or pejorative arguments about how one counts the number of primality tests and whether or not it was performed in a blatant manner (or not). I added the primality counting in good faith and I don't see how you could label that as lying, and blatant lying at that. And, no, I do not want to change the task's requirements as per your suggesting such that you won't complain. That's not how changing of someone else's Rosetta Code task's requirements is supposed to work. Furthermore, please be more careful of calling people liars on Rosetta Code. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
:::: My apologies, the 119 was a step too far. I ran your code on tio and it displayed 26 rather than the 14 claimed in the output. I will admit that I do not know enough about the REXX programming language to understand why that might not be classified as blatent lying. I will not however apologise for nor promise to desist in making what I think are sensible proactive changes to tasks shortly after creation, particularly not when a task is utterly trivial and extremely similar to a very recent one. There is always the undo button but you are not interested in that. Ultimately I simply do not understand why you complain about such changes but not about the creation of the task in the first place. In other words how is (no task -> task) actually any different to (task -> modified task), really? There are many tasks on RC that I ''wish'' somone else would spot a way to improve or make more challenging and interesting. If I have to revisit my code, that ''should'' be and usually is a good thing. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 08:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||