Talk:Dinesman's multiple-dwelling problem: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::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) |
||
What's wrong with the flexibility in the PicoLisp solution? It says |
|||
<lang PicoLisp>(not (topFloor Baker @Tenants)) |
|||
(not (bottomFloor Cooper @Tenants)) |
|||
(not (or ((topFloor Fletcher @Tenants)) ((bottomFloor Fletcher @Tenants)))) |
|||
(higherFloor Miller Cooper @Tenants) |
|||
(not (adjacentFloor Smith Fletcher @Tenants)) |
|||
(not (adjacentFloor Fletcher Cooper @Tenants))</lang> |
|||
In which way is this less flexible than, say, the C version, where the parameters are kept in macros and constants?--[[User:Abu|Abu]] 07:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |