Talk:Abbreviations, easy: Difference between revisions
m
→Need some clarifications: And yet the spec STILL calls for optional numbers
(→Need some clarifications: clarified what tasks.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (→Need some clarifications: And yet the spec STILL calls for optional numbers) |
||
Line 22:
: The specification that had the phrase <big> "optional number" </big> was a carry-over from a ''cut-n-paste'' from the ''abbreviations, simple'' Rosetta Code (draft) task that was entered previous to this task. That phrase was removed as soon as I woke up the next afternoon. In any case, the above point isn't moot any longer. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:: !!???? And yet that bullet point shown above is ''still'' in the spec, '''right now'''. How is it not moot? Even after I pointed it out and questioned it? Do you know what the definition of moot is? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
-----
Line 42 ⟶ 44:
Mu # The Most undefined object. There is no there there; I don't even have an Uncle Harold.
: Asking a real person a question that usually requires a phrase when the answer doesn't/can't answer the question succinctly; asking a computer program (possibly an AI program) to do the same would probably require a different syntax for the answer. No human would answer with a "null string", they would say something that would be meaningful to the questioner. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:: You've never dealt with actual users, have you. (Or at least me :-) ) --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it should be a null byte? \z, ^@, \0 or \x00? C programmers will be familiar with those.
Line 49 ⟶ 53:
Or should it just be an empty string? And if it should, '''why not just state that?'''
: Because some people think that a blank string ''is'' an empty string (I know I could think that way, depending upon the context). Still others will argue, what is an empty string? Would it be the same as a null string, a null character, a string with a blank in it, ... But, if you want to return an empty string (with either definition, they both work for me). That is why the phrase "a null string" was used. I was trying to use a phrase that most people would understand. Even if they didn't, I would not bemoan them for using whatever they thought it meant (null string, a string with blanks in it, empty string, null character, whatever was idiomatic for the computer language(s) being used. I thought it would be clear that if a blank line was read, a blank (or equivalent) would be the answer (that is, the result from the computer program --- blank line in, blank line out ... a one-off cognitive version of GIGO). For the system that I'm on, a blank record has a length of zero, even though I thought of that line as having a blank in it. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Yes, but the spec doesn't specify a '''blank''' string for output. The question isn't about '''blank''' strings. I never even mentioned a '''blank''' string. The spec say return a '''null''' string. The term '''null''' can be interpreted in many different ways.... Never mind. I'm not going to repeat my whole explanation and inquiry. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
| |||