Timeline for The vanilla factorial challenge
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2020 at 12:06 | history | edited | Technohacker | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Add credit |
| Aug 26, 2020 at 11:07 | history | edited | Technohacker | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Add closure-based solution |
| Aug 26, 2020 at 6:39 | comment | added | madlaina | Yes, you can just take the inputs as closure arguments, and you don't have to print the result, returning it is fine in most cases. | |
| Aug 26, 2020 at 3:39 | comment | added | Technohacker | @madlaina Thank you! So that means I can use the function argument as input without taking it from program arguments I presume? Also I can't remember why I didn't use nth(), I guess I had issues with stdin, I'll change that too :) | |
| Aug 25, 2020 at 19:10 | comment | added | madlaina | Sorry, I didn't see your answer before posting my own. You don't have to write a full program, a closure is fine for these sorts of challenges. You can use .nth(1) instead of .skip(1).next(). It is possible to return a Result from main, but unfortunately there's no standard type unifying NoneError from the Option and ParseIntError (Box<dyn std::error::Error> doesn't work because it's not implemented by NoneError (and probably shouldn't be)). In any case, the signature overhead is larger than the few bytes saved in most cases. | |
| Aug 25, 2020 at 11:12 | comment | added | Razetime | codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/74096/… | |
| Aug 25, 2020 at 10:48 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 25, 2020 at 11:01 | |||||
| Aug 25, 2020 at 10:47 | history | answered | Technohacker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |