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 solution
with no special cases, the first few changes are going to be
easy.
....
Ivan Kazmenko.
I followed that advice, and found and fixed more bugs that were
lurking in the original and in my complications. When the
number begins with a decimal point, that's an edge case none of
the earlier versions were handling right. I added a regression
test for that.
I just posted my latest version at Rosetta, without the
unnecessary complications. I hope you like it better.
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Commatizing_numbers#D
(The complications weren't totally useless though. Without
trying the complications, I wouldn't have tested enough to make
as much improvement as I have. Overcomplicated features are
something to avoid releasing, except in a repo folder of extras
for other programmers to try fiddling with, and Rosetta code
isn't exactly that.)
I very much like the current version. It is concise, has no
arbitrary constants in implementation, and does the job better
than the version before your edits.
As for commatizeSpec (which is currently removed), I still
believe it is too magically specialized to be useful. But as
long as vanilla commatize is available, I'd see commatizeSpec as
just a way to run the tests, and be fine with it.
Thank you for bearing with me, and being a better listener than I
am.
Ivan Kazmenko.
