Talk:Loops/For with a specified step: Difference between revisions
Talk:Loops/For with a specified step (view source)
Revision as of 12:35, 3 February 2021
, 3 years ago→"useless" examples?
(→"useless" examples?: insert link to what’s a for loop) |
|||
Line 2:
== "useless" examples? ==
The [[Special: Diff/322790|recent purge
: I understand that’s what [[Template: omit from|omit from]] is for: That a certain task is just simply impossible in a certain language.
: [[Special: Diff/322790|I have narrowed down the task]], because I think it is ''generally known'' counting loops ([[Loops/For|<tt>for</tt>-loops]]) can be written as ''semantically equivalent'' conditional loops (<tt>while</tt>-loops). I don’t need nobody to show me that, it’s “useless” for me and probably many many other users. I consulted this wiki page to see various flavors of how languages provide means to alter step widths (<tt>step</tt>, <tt>range</tt> with width specifier, etc.), not to see various flavors of [[Loops/While|<tt>while</tt> loops]], you know what I mean?
: I strongly oppose reinstating dozens of languages inserting a statement to this page, like: “This isn’t possible, but a <tt>while</tt>-loop can achieve the same: <nowiki><</nowiki>code example>”. Well, duh!? It’s ''just'' noise. Please leave that out and use [[Template: omit from|omit from]].
: [[User:Root|Root]] ([[User talk:Root|talk]]) 11:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:: Since you're here: 1) what was so offensive about the Axe for loop, or rather where on earth is your first new point coming from at all? 2) Why delete Delphi completely and just the code from Dragon? 3) What suddenly changed to make that [Delphi] ''ten year old'' example completely unacceptable? There is a reason why this site has draft tasks, and you should be very cautious (and probably discuss things first) before altering a task that was reviewed and promoted to full task status a decade ago. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||