Talk:Loops/For with a specified step: Difference between revisions
Talk:Loops/For with a specified step (view source)
Revision as of 17:07, 4 February 2021
, 3 years ago→"useless" examples?
(Add an explanation to help?) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 44:
:: Entrys can say msomething like "we don't have that construct but...".
:: Some tasks specifically state that X should be used. Not showing X may always cause issues so starting with an explanation may be best, but gives no guarantee. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 11:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::+1 as well. For some languages, the requirement just doesn't make sense. For esoteric languages such as brainf*ck of course, but also for more traditional ones: a for loop in assembly? Nope, it's a jump. I can imagine that a few other simplistic languages have goto but no loop. And of course, a range/seq/iterator is yet another approach. Often several are possible (Ruby comes to mind). Rosetta Code can't rigid. [[User:Bastet|Bastet]] ([[User talk:Bastet|talk]]) 14:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:: Done. This thread has already wasted more time than the "not liked by Root" did collectively over the last decade. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 17:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||