Talk:Loop over multiple arrays simultaneously: Difference between revisions

(→‎Task clarification required?: You're getting off-track, Tikkanz)
Line 7:
: I would suggest making a "same type" a primary goal for languages where it's convenient, and a second, separate "generic" example a secondary goal, and note which example goes with which goal. This keeps it simple for languages which support strong typing, allowing a little more showing off for languages with generics, and doesn't add a nonsensical requirement for languages with weak typing. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 06:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
:For some languages, type declarations just aren't present (either because of type inference or because of the use of value systems which make it unnecessary). More importantly, '''''that's not the point of this task'''''. It's the looping construct that is significant, not the types of the data participating. (Well, assuming that the language can loop over arrays/lists of arbitrary element type; I can't think why anyone would restrict it, but someone somewhere might be silly enough.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 09:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
:: I agree that the point of this task is to highlight the looping construct. My point is that because of the different interpretations of the example task, the differences in the looping mechanisms between languages is, to some extent, obfuscated. I have no problem with the arrays being of different types, I just think it would be better if the solutions were all solving the same task. I certainly wasn't suggesting that type must be explicitly specified by each language <shudder>.--[[User:Tikkanz|Tikkanz]] 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
892

edits