User talk:GordonCharlton: Difference between revisions
→Quackery: reply
(→Quackery: reply) |
|||
Line 21:
::Just noticed your contributions to the Quackery corpus. :-) Nothing silly there! I like your poke and find approach to the pangrams task. That's something I really wouldn't of thought of but now I can see a similar approach applying to other things. --[[User:GordonCharlton|GordonCharlton]] ([[User talk:GordonCharlton|talk]]) 12:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Thanks! I'm used to having Factor's set operations at my fingertips, so I had to get slightly more creative. :) On my latest submission ([http://rosettacode.org/wiki/ISBN13_check_digit#Quackery ISBN13 Check Digit]), I experimented with a nest indentation style that is easier for me to understand. If you prefer there to be a specific style to Quackery, I can continue writing it more like you do, though.
::: Speaking of style, the way you write code is how I always would have preferred to write Factor, with the 3 aligned columns for code, names, and stack comments. But it wasn't the 'official' way to write Factor, so I never did that. I'm happy there is someone else out there who prefers this way.
::: Which reminds me, I have a question for you about stack comments. Words like <code>witheach</code> have a stack comment like <code>( a --> b ) or ( [ --> [ )</code>. This makes sense strictly from the ''stack'' standpoint, but as a ''word'' contract I find it doesn't give me the picture I'm looking for to understand the word, since there is no indication of the nest it expects following the word. Is this something that could be resolved with a stack comment notation, like <code>( [ . [] --> [ )</code>? Just spitballing here; the <code>.</code> indicates the word position, while the <code>[]</code> indicates a nest following the word. No wrong answer either way; I understand wanting to keep it simple. --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 12:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
| |||