Talk:Tree datastructures: Difference between revisions
→Sample outline – something perhaps a bit more plausible and motivating
(→Attribution: Noted.) |
|||
Line 44:
:JSON: I didn't want to restrict the task that way, as some could make an equal claim for XML or lisp lists - I thought I'd stay more neutral on that point.
:The outline: There should be one, and only one, blah-de-blah :-) Well actually I loved my rocks/mocks pun too much and just slapped in "golfing" as a bad afterthought. I think it is very useful to have the one tree for all language examples, but I stopped mocking golfing years and years ago - its not for RC, but not for mocking IMHO. I have tried for a late save with a note, but is it too late to ask for all examples to update to use just "trolling"?
::Your task statement sensibly specifies code that is outline-independent, so any change would, if the code is working, be a quick copy-paste.
:: (I can speak for 4 of the 7 current entries, all of which I would very happy to change :-)
::To be honest, I feel a little embarrassed by any 'mocking' / 'trolling' references – people are dying from it at the moment – I think I would would prefer something perhaps a bit more plausible and motivating - maybe something that gave a sense of the contexts in which one might actually want to work with a tree structure, or something related to the content ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
==And when comparison has children?==
| |||