Talk:Brace expansion: Difference between revisions
→Duplicate supression: new section
m (fix typos) |
(→Duplicate supression: new section) |
||
Line 17:
:: Hm yeah, I guess requiring solutions to demonstrate the four test cases (with a listing of the actual output), instead of some "toy output", might make sense after all (even if it will make the page very long once there are many implementations). Btw, that Perl 6 solution looks pretty sweet... :) --[[User:Smls|Smls]] ([[User talk:Smls|talk]]) 10:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
::: I updated both the task description and the Perl solution accordingly now. --[[User:Smls|Smls]] ([[User talk:Smls|talk]]) 10:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
== Duplicate supression ==
The task currently has an ambiguity - specifically an explicit reference to an implementation (perl 6) which implements a requirement which is not explicitly stated in the task description.
More specifically, the perl 6 implementation suppresses duplicate results despite no description of this mechanism in the current task description. Consider {a,a,b} as an example which would generate duplicates. This issue shows up in the test case '{,{,gotta have{ ,\, again\, }}more }cowbell!' where nested empty prefixes appear. This case should have eight expansions. You can easily see this by placing a letter to the left of each non-escaped comma.
This means either the task description is buggy or the reference implementation is buggy. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 18:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
| |||