Talk:Odd word problem: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Recap and moving on...: new section) |
|||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
This task instead of being a normal task (which asks us to accomplish something) is currently specifying *how* we achieve that end. Specifically, it asks us to buffer a sequence of characters implicitly and not explicitly. Personally, I think that this kind of task bends the spirit of rosettacode: operations that can be implicit in one language may need to be explicit in another. |
This task instead of being a normal task (which asks us to accomplish something) is currently specifying *how* we achieve that end. Specifically, it asks us to buffer a sequence of characters implicitly and not explicitly. Personally, I think that this kind of task bends the spirit of rosettacode: operations that can be implicit in one language may need to be explicit in another. |
||
So, I propose that we bend the task, to compensate. Specifically: I propose that when a task forbids certain programming constructs and mandates others, that |
So, I propose that we bend the task, to compensate. Specifically: I propose that when a task forbids certain programming constructs and mandates others, that the "forbidden constructs" be allowed in support code which is not a part of the task implementation itself (in other words: link to the support code but do not include it on the task page). This should ideally be generalized utility code which emulates facilities used in "acceptable" solutions, but I do not think it's fair (or even possible) to mandate that for the general case of tasks which step over the line from specifying the ends to specifying the means. |
||
(Specifically, in this case, I would want to implement co-routines and character-at-a-time streams, for J. But in general we are supposed to be allowing "best effort" implementations, and not requiring specific language semantics.) |
(Specifically, in this case, I would want to implement co-routines and character-at-a-time streams, for J. But in general we are supposed to be allowing "best effort" implementations, and not requiring specific language semantics.) |