Talk:Loops/For with a specified step: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→"useless" examples?: consider me against these changes) |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:::: Good grief ... "''This is a wiki, so ...''" "''In consequence I ...''" ''"I just couldn't ...''" ? |
:::: Good grief ... "''This is a wiki, so ...''" "''In consequence I ...''" ''"I just couldn't ...''" ? |
||
:::: Are you serious ? Forgive me, but this is not Wikipedia, the software used is utterly irrelevant, and to protect yourself from a whirlpool of monologue, and the site from an episode of vandalism, you do need to consult and discuss before you rush blindly and self-righteously into deletions. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
:::: Are you serious ? Forgive me, but this is not Wikipedia, the software used is utterly irrelevant, and to protect yourself from a whirlpool of monologue, and the site from an episode of vandalism, you do need to consult and discuss before you rush blindly and self-righteously into deletions. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
: I'm throwing my hat into the ring for reversing these changes. If I'm learning a new language and come to Rosetta Code to see how it does a for loop, it's far more useful to see a demonstration of that language's nearest equivalent than it is to see it's been omitted. Furthermore, there is more nuance to many language's iteration constructs than simply considering them to either be generators or clones of one particular language's <code>while</code> and <code>for</code> loops. --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 10:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||