> Andrew Clarke wrote: > > These would make sense as illustrated alternatives if Rosetta encourages > > that, but it seems the plan of this site is to solve a specific task in a > > specific way. Depends on how /essential/ it is to have the "break" > > operator as part of the solution; it is asking for a loop with a break... > > I didn't see mention of that in the actual problem statement and wonder > how languages w/o a 'break' handle it. When I get a chance I'll look > through other languages solutions to see how closely the "specific task > in a specific way" is really adhered to. It grates on my nerves to have > to give an awkward solution when a cleaner one that takes better > advantage of the language exists (as awkward solutions give others a > poor impression of the language)! >
I think the devil is in the details. The task is called loop/break, but the description says "If a number is 10, stop the loop after printing it, and do not generate any further numbers." and of course it depends on how adherent we have to be to literally following the key task. The description just quoted makes it clear that old FORTRAN will be allowed to use GOTO since it doesn't have BREAK. I guess we're safe not actually using the 'break' keyword. I like to think we're smart enough to stay true to the task while showing the best method(s). Nothing makes a group of people look dumber than turning up to a vegetarian BBQ with a tray of sausages... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Unicon-group mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
