Talk:Five weekends

From Rosetta Code

Mods to task description

I thought we needed the total number of months within the range as well as stating how much to print, as a minimum to allow people to compare different implementations for accuracy. --Paddy3118 07:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike(Mwn3d), the changes I have made have invalidated the Java solution. Have I gone to far? --Paddy3118 07:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already fixed so nope :). --Mwn3d 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, the task was inspired by this blog post: --Michael Mol 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A clarification on task #3 (Show at least the first and last five dates, in order):

Task #1 .. (show ALL months...) which would seem to preclude item #3, unless
task #3 (dates) would've wanted the dates of the first and last five weekends, not just the months.
Since nobody else took my interpretation of "dates", I didn't include that version of a date. Gerard Schildberger

Item #1 in The task uses the term "full weekends" meaning Friday+Saturday+Sunday, but it may be misinterpreted to include months with 5 Saturday+Sunday+Monday in the solution (example, October 2011) --Antonio Bueno 10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The task should be renamed to 'Five full weekends' --Walterpachl 13:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Improve C?

Surely this can be solved without relying on an external command. (For EMBee, by --Paddy3118 07:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)).

thanks, but what's wrong with the improve tag? it helps people looking at the language page to see which solutions could be improved. --eMBee 08:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi EMBee, you are right. they are using the ncal external Unix command rather than a C library. I didn't look into it enough. I'll revert back to your edit. Sorry. --Paddy3118 08:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Given Ledrugs' invitation to delete, from his comment on the removal of the improve tag of "this example does not need improvement: it was deliberately written so. If you think it's too devious, delete it." I am inclined to either leave it with a notice to improve it, or delete it as the solution does not aid language comparison for this straight-forward task. What do others (Including Ledrug), think? --Paddy3118 03:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That particular example is centered around using an external program, because there are already like five tasks dealing with weekdays which all do more the less the same thing. There's no point in "improving" it so it becomes yet another redundant solution, if you don't think it serves a purpose, go ahead and delete it. If you want to improve something, go improve the other C example instead, because it likely won't calculate past 2038. As to "aiding language comparison", it's too subjective, and I have no opinion about it. --Ledrug 04:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
the improvement that i was looking for when adding the tag is achieved by the other C version which doesn't rely on ncal. so i guess the improve tag is no longer needed. however since the solutions used different approaches, i think both can stay.--eMBee 06:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. +1 --Paddy3118 09:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

missing sub in "short" REXX program

In the 3rd REXX example:   the   err   subroutine seems to be missing. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)