Talk:Sum multiples of 3 and 5: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(→‎What is the intent of the task?: I hope we keep a task with the current interpretation (of all but the task author so we might need to split).)
(→‎What is the intent of the task?: did some task rewordsmithing)
Line 10: Line 10:
:* Below means up to, but not including.
:* Below means up to, but not including.
:...happens to have REXX and Python solutions following TimToady's Perl 6 lead. I quite liked that interpretation. If the task moves away from this, could we create a another task to preserve this interpretation? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 17:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
:...happens to have REXX and Python solutions following TimToady's Perl 6 lead. I quite liked that interpretation. If the task moves away from this, could we create a another task to preserve this interpretation? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 17:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
::I've cleaned up the task to be consistent with the (current) majority interpretation. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 17:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:38, 14 May 2013

What is the intent of the task?

  • The "sum of" does not mean the same as the "count of" numbers. Which does the author intend?
  • Second, the description should say "positive integers" if that is what is intended, because there are an infinite number of negative integers below 1000.
  • Third, "below" doesn't include 1000, so maybe it should say "not greater than"?

Thanks. --TimToady (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The reading of the task where:
  • Sum means sum and not count.
  • It is taken to mean positive integers.
  • Below means up to, but not including.
...happens to have REXX and Python solutions following TimToady's Perl 6 lead. I quite liked that interpretation. If the task moves away from this, could we create a another task to preserve this interpretation? --Paddy3118 (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the task to be consistent with the (current) majority interpretation. --TimToady (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)