Talk:Solve a Hopido puzzle: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→implied task requirement?: added an ole comment.) |
(Let's see if I can edit pages now...) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Quoting from this Rosetta Code task preamble: |
Quoting from this Rosetta Code task preamble: |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Gleaning from this, should the computer program entries display the (elapsed) time used to solve the problem (let's say), rounded up to <sup>'''1'''</sup>/<sub>'''10'''</sub> of a second? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 04:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
Gleaning from this, should the computer program entries display the (elapsed) time used to solve the problem (let's say), rounded up to <sup>'''1'''</sup>/<sub>'''10'''</sub> of a second? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 04:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 10: | ||
:: Well, from my ole mainframe days, when somebody used the word ''milliseconds'', it was always assumed to mean ''sub-second''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
:: Well, from my ole mainframe days, when somebody used the word ''milliseconds'', it was always assumed to mean ''sub-second''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
::: I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. That said, the guidelines for [[Rosetta_Code:Add_a_Task|adding a task]] do suggest that we should try to favor what people can supply over overly strict requirements. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 April 2016
implied task requirement?
Quoting from this Rosetta Code task preamble:
- Knowing the kindness in the heart of every contributor to Rosetta Code, I know that we shall feel that as an act of humanity we must solve these puzzles for them in let's say milliseconds.
Gleaning from this, should the computer program entries display the (elapsed) time used to solve the problem (let's say), rounded up to 1/10 of a second? -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe. Personally, though - since no upper bound was specified - I'd be inclined to accept anything up to at least a million milliseconds. Or, if that quip was intended to be a constraint on programmer time, I'd personally think we should allow much, much higher than that. --Rdm (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, from my ole mainframe days, when somebody used the word milliseconds, it was always assumed to mean sub-second. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. That said, the guidelines for adding a task do suggest that we should try to favor what people can supply over overly strict requirements. --Rdm (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)