Anonymous user
Talk:Pascal matrix generation: Difference between revisions
m
→task clarification: added a "missing" word to make the sentence easier to understand.
(→range of numbers: added a reaffirming comment.) |
m (→task clarification: added a "missing" word to make the sentence easier to understand.) |
||
Line 6:
:I guess if there is documented language style for having one parameterised function in a similar area then it might be good to reference the standard library function(s) that you copying the style of then have the one function, but three functions is what the task expects. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 05:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
:: Should I remove the 2<sup>nd</sup> REXX entry then? ... and will you be marking other entries as "needing improvement" or somesuch? The 2<sup>nd</sup> Rexx entry uses a singular function to generate all three forms of Pascal matrices. However, in its defense, it does read better. But, a lot of whitespace added to the 1<sup>st</sup> REXX version would add a significant vertical whitespace. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
::: Well, I started that (after my sloppy reading of the task specs). My function<b>s</b> are pascal & comb although comb is, strictly speaking, not a <b>function</b> :-) --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
| |||