Talk:Combinations with repetitions/Square digit chain: Difference between revisions
(→Resolving contradictions?: new section) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (Thundergnat moved page Talk:Combinations with repetitions/Square Digit Chain to Talk:Combinations with repetitions/Square digit chain: Follow normal task title capitalization policy) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I see a variety of contradictions here. For example, the iterated square digit chain had an explicit "only natural numbers" requirement, but the code here mentions 0 as a part of the set. Also, the language here talks about all possible combinations of 1s, which is an odd thing to talk about in the context of a set. |
I see a variety of contradictions here. For example, the iterated square digit chain had an explicit "only natural numbers" requirement, but the code here mentions 0 as a part of the set. Also, the language here talks about all possible combinations of 1s, which is an odd thing to talk about in the context of a set. |
||
:I have changed set to collection so with k=3, 1,1,1 is valid and c would be 1. 0,9,81 is valid and c would be 6. I have excluded 0,0,0--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
To help resolve what this task is really about (and possible task description changes), I think we should see a few result examples. |
To help resolve what this task is really about (and possible task description changes), I think we should see a few result examples. |
||
:To follow soon--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 12:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 12:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
==D Entry== |
|||
Its quality is too much low, it's not idiomatic, it's a mess, its lines are too much long, it has no imports and it uses a function not present in Phobos. So I suggest to just remove it from the page unless it's vastly improved (and to conform to Rosettacode standards and to not put the name of the author in the code or page). |
|||
Latest revision as of 13:59, 7 November 2020
Resolving contradictions?
I see a variety of contradictions here. For example, the iterated square digit chain had an explicit "only natural numbers" requirement, but the code here mentions 0 as a part of the set. Also, the language here talks about all possible combinations of 1s, which is an odd thing to talk about in the context of a set.
- I have changed set to collection so with k=3, 1,1,1 is valid and c would be 1. 0,9,81 is valid and c would be 6. I have excluded 0,0,0--Nigel Galloway (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
To help resolve what this task is really about (and possible task description changes), I think we should see a few result examples.
- To follow soon--Nigel Galloway (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Rdm (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
D Entry
Its quality is too much low, it's not idiomatic, it's a mess, its lines are too much long, it has no imports and it uses a function not present in Phobos. So I suggest to just remove it from the page unless it's vastly improved (and to conform to Rosettacode standards and to not put the name of the author in the code or page).