Anonymous user
Village Pump/Approximate fit solutions: Difference between revisions
Village Pump/Approximate fit solutions (view source)
Revision as of 21:06, 24 July 2011
, 12 years agoWe do allow examples which don't match exactly, but they usually match the core goal of the task
m (A policy would be sufficient) |
(We do allow examples which don't match exactly, but they usually match the core goal of the task) |
||
Line 11:
:I see this as a consequence of your [[Pi#GUISS]] "solution" being rejected and you are trying yet another way to weasel out of it. I don't think there is any place for such a template. For a task, there are correct solutions, and there are not-so-correct soutions written in good faith. What constitutes "in good faith" is subjective, so people must be allowed to scrutinize them instead of letting them hide under some umbrella tag. Case in point: by most people's standard, the GUISS pi digits "solution" would not be a good faithed attempt (want a bet?), yet you still want a tag there so you can point at it and say "don't remove it, it's tagged such, thus acceptible". --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
::It's nothing to do with that. I am trying to make the documents as good as they can be, and I think being relaxed and inclusive is the best way forward. I don't think we need to be quite so strict with an "this is not an exact match, so it must be deleted" type of approach. After all, the solution was valid, whether it gets published here or not. I can always publish it on another website. That is not a problem. It's just convenient to work with Rosetta Code, because it has similar goals to a project that I have been developing, and the infrasture is already in place here, and I quite like how the project is evolving. FWIW, a policy would alleviate the need for the tag, or it is easy to add "If your language cannot achieve this task exactly, then make an approximate implementation, and state divergencies and limitations in the provided solution" to every task. But I think this is extreme. A policy would be sufficient (if only really for the purpose of clarification of conflict between different developers ideas). [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
:::We do include examples which aren't exact matches. Usually they are discussed in the talk pages and annotated properly (or changed/replaced) if there is a problem. The problem with the one in [[pi]] is that it doesn't seem to match any part of the task except displaying part of the value of pi. It does not calculate, and it doesn't continuously show digits except to the extent of a stored number. It's understandable to add a solution for a task which has (for example) 5 requirements and the solution meets 4 of them as long, as the one requirement it misses isn't the real point of the task (like a display issue on a calculation task) and as long as it's noted. It is not acceptable to add a solution to a task which does not fit "the spirit of the task" (like using a completely different type of algorithm than what the task asks for). In short, the policy is implicitly in place and no template is needed. Any disputes should be taken to their talk pages, and both sides should try to keep an open mind (and please keep it nice...don't attack). --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 21:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
==Policy==
| |||