21–30 of 199 posts
I'm not really a programming language expert, but it seems to me that having an implementation being the spec wouldn't be a good idea. If the Streem implementation has a bug, then the bug becomes the authoritative behavior. Any platform specific quirks would also make it difficult to have defined behavior.
"Copyright (c) 2015 Yukihiro Matsumoto" - bit early, ey? ;)
Not a fan of the closing braces.
I'm a fan of indentation based blocks, so this seems like a step back for me :\
Why do most implementations of FizzBuzz special case % 15? I haven't ever really understood this. Maybe it's just my math-y background, but it always seemed to me you should just check mod 3 and mod 5 without an else between them, concatenating Fizz and Buzz. Can anyone else comment on this? Most canonical FizzBuzz programs special case 15, and I don't get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's to neatly handle the line break.
I suppose it's a style issue as to whether an extra mod is better than checking if one of the triggers has passed. I would propose it's more DRY to do it the short way though.
Of course, it can be actually shorter with a goto.
Why do most implementations of FizzBuzz special case % 15? I haven't ever really understood this. Maybe it's just my math-y background, but it always seemed to me you should just check mod 3 and mod 5 without an else between them, concatenating Fizz and Buzz. Can anyone else comment on this? Most canonical FizzBuzz programs special case 15, and I don't get it.
Some of us know that clients ALWAYS change their minds, specs are rarely equivalent to the end result, and code against future changes that are trivial to account for in advance.
Reminds me a lot of Elixir's |> operator, which does the exact same thing. Nice! Curious how it'll turn out to compare with Elixir on other areas.
let (|>) x f = f x