Anonymous user
Talk:Determine if a string is collapsible: Difference between revisions
Talk:Determine if a string is collapsible (view source)
Revision as of 04:42, 29 November 2019
, 4 years ago→How strict are the requirements?: added an answer and some comments.
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→How strict are the requirements?: new section) |
m (→How strict are the requirements?: added an answer and some comments.) |
||
Line 5:
If somebody posts an example that works correctly, but doesn't use the 5 required example strings from the task description, should the entry be marked incorrect? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 01:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
: As the author of the task being mentioned, I'd mark it (somehow) as missing <u>some</u> of the required output (like a modified <big> <nowiki> {{output?}} </nowiki></big> template). If there were an ''incomplete output'' (or other such wording) type of flag, that would be usable/noticeable, and ''if'' it got the attention of author of that programming entry. Another possibility is the <big> <nowiki> {{needs improvement}} </nowiki></big> template, but that (I think) conveys that the program entry is to be improved. But I guess <u>what</u> needs improvement is kinda up to whatever needs to be improved. Some programs have the input(s) either within (inside) the program as statements or literal fields, or made available via parameters, or other (such as an input file). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 04:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
: An ''incomplete output'' (flag) template may not have the wording (and color) to convey the message that only ''some'' of the output is missing. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 04:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
: If the entry works correctly, but has no output at all, would that be sufficient grounds to flag the example/entry? As I understand it, it would. But how does one who doesn't know the programming language well enough to know that the computer program works correctly, if all I have to judge its correctness is the output of that program? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 04:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
: Note that this Rosetta Code task says to use (''at least'') these five required examples. It was my intent to not limit whatever examples to be used, but to have a common base of output for comparisons (among the various computer programming language entries). I must admit, I don't know of all the possible templates that are available and/or what is usable for such a purpose, as some templates do more than others --- such as adding an language entry to some category that can be examined later by reviewing a specific category of that computer programming language. The template <big> <nowiki> {{improve}} </nowiki></big> could be used as it comes close to what I intended to express. The template <big> <nowiki> {{output?/beta}} </nowiki></big> is another possibility, but I don't know exactly what that's used for. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 04:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
| |||