Anonymous user
Talk:Loops/For with a specified step: Difference between revisions
Talk:Loops/For with a specified step (view source)
Revision as of 11:31, 4 February 2021
, 3 years ago+1
(→"useless" examples?: Reversal seconded.) |
(+1) |
||
Line 40:
: 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)
:: Seconded. More value was '''removed''' than added, and prior discussion would have protected not only Rosetta value, but also contributor time. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 10:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:: +1 from me too. If a language has the feature then it should be shown; (we might argue about if other non-feature implementations may also be shown). If a language misses the feature then showing that languages idiomatic replacement, especially for basic constructs, should be encouraged. "Esoteric" languages, for example, may be specifically esoteric in their methods of implementing common constructs. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 11:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||