Talk:Dinesman's multiple-dwelling problem: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Why stated like that?: missing comment instead of flexibility) |
(→Flexibility: No comment.) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::Maybe it's just me failing to understand why anyone would want to write a program that can only deal with some text already known, and can't be reasonably expected to work on much of anything else with a similar nature--kind of defeating the purpose of programming. But if you find it fun, good for you. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 06:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::Maybe it's just me failing to understand why anyone would want to write a program that can only deal with some text already known, and can't be reasonably expected to work on much of anything else with a similar nature--kind of defeating the purpose of programming. But if you find it fun, good for you. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 06:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Flexibility== |
|||
What's wrong with the flexibility in the PicoLisp solution? It says |
What's wrong with the flexibility in the PicoLisp solution? It says |
||
<lang PicoLisp>(not (topFloor Baker @Tenants)) |
<lang PicoLisp>(not (topFloor Baker @Tenants)) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
: I think the tag is there because there's no discussion about the solution's flexibility, not because the solution lacks flexibility. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
: I think the tag is there because there's no discussion about the solution's flexibility, not because the solution lacks flexibility. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
: Ledrug has it right. You need to comment on the flexilility of the solution. It was not flagged because it was not flexible just because its flexibility was not explained at all. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||