Talk:Minimal numbers of three lists at same position: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(A trivial variation of an existing task.) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Duplicate task=== |
===Duplicate task=== |
||
This is effectively a duplicate of the [https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Minimum_numbers_of_three_lists Minimum_numbers_of_three_lists] task except that had lists of 5 numbers and this one has 9 numbers. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
This is effectively a duplicate of the [https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Minimum_numbers_of_three_lists Minimum_numbers_of_three_lists] task except that had lists of 5 numbers and this one has 9 numbers. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
:Yeah, I have to be honest. These trivial variations are getting a bit discouraging. It seems I spend most of my time here smashing out the same code over and over for tasks that differ only in a few minor details. I think it's time the community put the foot down and said "enough of this". [[User:Thebigh|Thebigh]] ([[User talk:Thebigh|talk]]) 19:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:You can have my vote for deletion too. In fact I'm surprised we haven't seen Minim(um/al) number of four lists [at the same position], Minim(um/al) number of five lists [at the same position], Minim(um/al) number of six lists [at the same position], ... --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:22, 22 November 2021
Duplicate task
This is effectively a duplicate of the Minimum_numbers_of_three_lists task except that had lists of 5 numbers and this one has 9 numbers. --PureFox (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have to be honest. These trivial variations are getting a bit discouraging. It seems I spend most of my time here smashing out the same code over and over for tasks that differ only in a few minor details. I think it's time the community put the foot down and said "enough of this". Thebigh (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- You can have my vote for deletion too. In fact I'm surprised we haven't seen Minim(um/al) number of four lists [at the same position], Minim(um/al) number of five lists [at the same position], Minim(um/al) number of six lists [at the same position], ... --Pete Lomax (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)