Anonymous user
Talk:Lucky and even lucky numbers: Difference between revisions
We should at least consider splitting this task.
m (→Wrong example of even luckies?: metathesized two words) |
(We should at least consider splitting this task.) |
||
Line 49:
:(Also, if the quibble is that Perl 6 entry isn't following the first three rules, it is. It is, in fact, testing for those conditions with the signature matching. If the intent is to mandate some kind of particular error message in <i>response</i> to those errors, it should be made clearer just how anally the original implementation is to be copied.) --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 01:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:(Or if the requirement is for a placeholder comma, it's certainly not necessary for the Perl 6 solution, though I could certainly make it throw one away easily enough. The point of Rosettacode is to show idiomatic usages, not force every language to show how it supports the limitations of other languages...) --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 01:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
== Should this task be split? ==
The more I think about it, the more this seems like two completely distinct tasks unnaturally wedded. We have on the one hand
the relatively pretty matter of producing the integer sequences named in the title of the task, and on the other hand, we have
the task of implementing a relatively ugly (from a Unix perspective) command-line API. The two tasks seem to have almost nothing to do with each other, and the latter task in not something the title of the page would lead one to expect. It feels like an add-on to me. I'd recommend that we have a page for the pure math, and a different page for the API style, justifiable perhaps as a demo of how to fit into a culture that doesn't use switches for optional arguments. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 02:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||