Talk:Loops/Do-while: Difference between revisions

:: Absolutely – there is certainly a potential task here, and posters have responded creatively despite its defective formulation. The main problem in this (and in a set of related (aspirant) tasks) radiates out from defects in the way they are framed and named. (A secondary problem here is the lack of a required output, which is a necessary stimulus to richer and more transparent comparability. These tasks should have been (and could still be):

:::#Gathered around a less superficial and more revealing concept and word. Perhaps, for example ''repetition''.

:::#Presented in terms of the general problems that arise with repetitive processes, rather than in terms of "loops".

::Instead of offering deeper insight and a clear framework for comparability and contrast, the use of a narrowly imperative idiom was procrustean and distorting.

::It should have stated an actual problem (in more general and insightful terms than loops), and an invitation to solve the problem in the manner best suited to each language.

::Instead, it forced several languages into artificial and potentially misleading exercises. The comment following the J example is symptomatic:

::: "'''Though it's rare to see J code like this'''."

::Editorial suggestions:

:::#Raise the game in terms of generality, depth and usefulness to users in the framing of future tasks.

:::#Rename the 'Loop' tagged tasks in terms of 'Repetition', and clearly frame the general problem in each case, without limiting or distorting presumption about how languages should tackle that problem.

:: Perhaps, for example:

:::Conditional repetition

:::Halting repetition

:::Repetition - special terminating cases

:::Repetition - handling exceptions

:::etc etc.

:Even more eloquent than the name, however, is a clear example of input and output. (Missing, in this case). [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)