Anonymous user
Talk:Loops/For with a specified step: Difference between revisions
Talk:Loops/For with a specified step (view source)
Revision as of 11:37, 4 February 2021
, 3 years agoAdd an explanation to help?
(+1) |
(Add an explanation to help?) |
||
Line 41:
:: 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.
:: 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)
| |||