Talk:Marching squares: Difference between revisions
→Task needs work: cleaned up mishap, added "gaps" theory.
m (→Task needs work: wrap up) |
(→Task needs work: cleaned up mishap, added "gaps" theory.) |
||
Line 1:
== Task needs work ==
Currently, the task description does not allow us to determine whether an implementation is correct.
Line 56 ⟶ 49:
:Overall I would agree this task is far from perfect and TG's code is at best a gross oversimplification (whilst somehow also being a gross overcomplication) that bears little resemblance to anything else I've seen. Then again in my opinion the wp description of the algorithm also leaves much to be desired. It seems to me the Julia and Python outputs are rotated by 90 but with 99.9% of the actual implementation being somewhat hidden I can't exactly be sure about that. A much better (text-representable) input, the expected/desired output (ditto), and maybe a few simple (third-party-hosted) images would certainly help. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 15:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
:FWIW, I suspect the Wren and Phix output corresponds to the "gaps" in the input, and maybe the (quite blatently deliberate and easily undone) negative Y result is somehow supposed to indicate that? --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
| |||