Talk:Executable library: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→We should merge Executable library's content back into Scripted main: This task is more specific.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:Or not! Hi Mcandre. If there has been no other improvements to scripted mains task description then I don't see a case for the two tasks to merge. The reasons for this task appearing will still exist. This task is about what pythons thing can give you rather than the thing itself and has already given us that excellent [[Executable_library#C|C example]] (IMHO). If you maybe extract the essence of your examples and put that in the scripted main task description then we could end up with two great tasks with slightly differing emphasis? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 07:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
:Or not! Hi Mcandre. If there has been no other improvements to scripted mains task description then I don't see a case for the two tasks to merge. The reasons for this task appearing will still exist. This task is about what pythons thing can give you rather than the thing itself and has already given us that excellent [[Executable_library#C|C example]] (IMHO). If you maybe extract the essence of your examples and put that in the scripted main task description then we could end up with two great tasks with slightly differing emphasis? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 07:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: Executable library is duplicating the content of [[Scripted main]], thus both should be merged. The difference is that [[Scripted main]] contains bite size, simple examples in dozens of languages, while [[Executable library]] contains fewer, more overblown examples. I admit that my examples may be too simplistic to demonstrate the need for an "executable library", but I believe hailstone sequences are sufficiently complex that they distract from the purpose of an "executable library". --[[User:Mcandre]] |
|||
==Tcl problem== |
==Tcl problem== |
||