On Thursday, 1 June 2017 at 08:45:23 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 15:44:51 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
So, two custom calls, two minor changes, no sweat. Is
everything right now? Even if not: that was fast, we can do
another iteration. When we have a short readable
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 15:44:51 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
So, two custom calls, two minor changes, no sweat. Is
everything right now? Even if not: that was fast, we can do
another iteration. When we have a short readable solution with
no special cases, the first few changes are
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 15:44:51 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 13:27:24 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
Fine, by the numbers:
1. pi has the commas start at the wrong digit, and doesn't
follow the explicit instructions to use spaces as the
separator and a grouping of 5
Ca
If you still insist you are doing the right thing and all
others are wrong, let's agree to disagree on that, and please
just leave the original solution there by introducing two
versions.
Or we could just agree that the original was wrong and needs
fixing? That is obviously the right thing to
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 13:27:24 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
Fine, by the numbers:
1. pi has the commas start at the wrong digit, and doesn't
follow the explicit instructions to use spaces as the separator
and a grouping of 5
Can be solved by calling the function with a right set of
paramete
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 04:31:14 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 10:54:49 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
I ran into a Rosetta code solution in D that had obvious
errors. It's like the author or the previous editor wasn't
even trying to do it right, like a protest against how ma
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 04:31:14 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
Now, where is the old version wrong? ...
Actually, it also changes every number in the string, not only
the first one as required. Because of that, it also fails the
"do not touch the exponent" requirement. Sadly, both are not
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 10:54:49 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
I ran into a Rosetta code solution in D that had obvious
errors. It's like the author or the previous editor wasn't even
trying to do it right, like a protest against how many detailed
rules the task had. I assumed that's not the way we
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 10:54:49 UTC, Solomon E wrote:
The earlier version of the page made D look more error prone
than other languages, but short. Now my solution is as long as
some of the other language's solutions, but it's well commented
and tested, I think. Now I doubt any of the sol
I ran into a Rosetta code solution in D that had obvious errors.
It's like the author or the previous editor wasn't even trying to
do it right, like a protest against how many detailed rules the
task had. I assumed that's not the way we want to do things in D.
Then I spent all day fixing it. O
10 matches
Mail list logo
