On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:31 PM <jf...@ms4.hinet.net> wrote: > > Chris Angelico於 2018年12月10日星期一 UTC+8下午7時09分01秒寫道： > > Yet most human beings will agree that you don't write out an > > arithmetic problem as: > > > > 0 1 9 8 > > + 7 1 3 > > ========= > > Python3 gives me the error message is because of the number 0198, not because > of 0198 + 713.
As would humans, yes. You don't write numbers with leading zeros in normal grade-school arithmetic. Or at least, I was taught not to. (Except in special circumstances.) > > > I prefer to buy the reason that this restriction was bring in is because > > > of the puzzle's author know it will cause trouble without this, not > > > because of our written habit. > > > > > > > No, it's a restriction because it is unsatisfactory without it. The > > point of a puzzle is to be fun, and fun means having restrictions that > > fit what people expect. > > The fun is from solving the puzzle, not from its restriction, unless the > puzzle has no fun without this restriction. > Okay. Here, solve this one. send + more = digits There are absolutely no restrictions. A letter could represent the square root of negative one, or the base of natural logarithms, or anything at all. Is that fun? Or would you prefer to have normal and sane restrictions? Restrictions are there to create fun. Restrictions make it into an interesting puzzle instead of a "gotcha" that makes you feel stupid when someone points it out (for instance, you say "there's no solution" and someone says "ah ha, but you see, the letter 's' represents the colour green, not a digit"). In terms of game/puzzle design, the restriction is a good one. In terms of programming language design, it's also a good restriction, though for different reasons (mainly the conflict between the C-derived expectation and the human-derived expectation, and the subtle confusion that would be caused). ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
