Talk:Evaluate binomial coefficients: Difference between revisions

Line 25:
Paddy or Donald (User:Paddy3118), please curb your appetite for deletionary vandalism, if you can. The example which you deleted as 'obfuscation' was deliberately '''clearer''' than the incumbent, explicitly labelling the implicit products and factorials. It was also, unlike the existing functional version, compatible with Python 3, which requires an import of reduce. Finally, it was better optimised for code reuse.
 
There is no need for a resurgence of this destructive and gratuitous campaign – it is certainly not constructive, or good for Rosetta Code – and I have restored the deleted original. You did something similar recently to an example deriving cartesian products from the applicative abstraction. (Undeterred, apparently, by the fact that I was the author of the Cartesian Products task :-) Functional programming is clearly not an area ofin which your expertise foror youenthusiasm are particularly concentrated, but that doesn't really seem to be a sufficient reason for aggressively deleting examples of it without warning. Does deletion really give such a thrill ? Perhaps you could usefully consider getting such thrills elsewhere ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 10:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
9,659

edits