Talk:Substring primes: Difference between revisions

: By removing the task's limit, you're invalided all but "your" solution.   The whole point of Rosetta Code   (well, at least one of them)   is to compare how different computer programming languages (and programmers) solve the stated problem (the task as stated).   Significantly changing the (draft) task's requirements (and/or wording) makes comparing the solutions at this point, pointless.   At this time, all but one programming solution uses a limit of some kind.     -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 10:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 

 

::: The REXX entry <u>does</u> give the correct output. &nbsp; Apart from your characterization of how (and what) the REXX entry counts as primality testing, &nbsp; and I &nbsp; (as the sole author of the REXX entry) &nbsp; shouldn't be accused of being blatantly lying; &nbsp; I didn't considering the elimination of various numbers using digit-wise filtering as a primality test, &nbsp; but I don't want to get into useless and/or pejorative arguments about how one &nbsp; counts &nbsp; the number of primality tests and whether or not it was performed in a blatant manner (or not). &nbsp; I added the primality counting in good faith and I don't see how you could label that as lying, &nbsp; and blatant lying at that. &nbsp; And, no, I do not want to change the task's requirements as per your suggesting such that you won't complain. &nbsp; That's not how changing of someone else's Rosetta Code task's requirements is supposed to work. &nbsp; Furthermore, please be more careful of calling people liars on Rosetta Code. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

::::::OK, when I said "The REXX entry blatently lies", I meant no personal attack, I am sure you made an honest mistake. Despite my very best intentions, my own documentation (and program source and RC entries) almost certainly contain dozens of "blatent lies", a term I apply liberally to my own work, and should refrain from applying to that of others. But it is worrying when the output shown is wrong, as you have just done again on [[Palindromic primes]].<br> Maybe the output was correct but the code was out of date - I have not seen any REXX version that could ever have possibly output a count of 14. <br> Sorry, but I am completely dumbstruck by your inability to comprehend new vs. modified task, and cannot say anything that would make that any clearer. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

::I object to removing the limit. It invalidates my FreeBASIC solution which, despite being cheeky, illustrates an entirely different approach to the problem; one that does not involve converting to and from strings. [[User:Thebigh|Thebigh]] ([[User talk:Thebigh|talk]]) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)