Anonymous user
Talk:Odd word problem: Difference between revisions
→Other References
m (→Other References: subbullets for readability) |
|||
Line 19:
::* The code examples on c2 are not helpful. They code about breaking the rules right off the start. Very disorganized. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 10:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
::* Some of what I've found (sorry forgot the reference) refers to a 20 character limitation per word and I've seen snippets that suggest that this is used inside the readword as a buffer to reverse the word. This would fly in face of the no buffer rule (2). But again it really is hampered by not having a visible source for the original problem and an example of the solution that Dijkstra's class/group came up with. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 10:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
::: The changes in this task should not affect the essence, they are only to weed out bad examples such as ones on c2. The read a char/write a char operations represent some generic actions, and added restrictions are there to prevent people from taking the "char" aspect too literally. Now that people are complaining, this part clearly is working. As for being a challenge, it's not meant to be. Just pretend you were given blackbox routines <code>input</code>, which changes local state, and <code>output</code> and <code>is_end_of_word</code>, which both depend how it was changed, and try to find a way to arrange the order of those happening. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 12:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
* There is a [http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ Dijkstra archive at Utexas] that was linked from c2. Some of the material is searchable but for some reason isn't jumping out in google searches. This led to [http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD302.html EWD302 and the Odd Word Problem]. The problem was a working example in front of a class with commentary and less a fully structured solution than a teaching excercise. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 10:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||