Skip to content

Robot name uniqueness clarification #765

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 9, 2017

Conversation

Insti
Copy link
Contributor

@Insti Insti commented Apr 24, 2017

The previous description of this problem was unclear about
This patch removes the ambiguity by clearly stating that "every existing robot has a unique name."

This PR is an alternative to #748 which seeks to make the name uniqueness an extension,
and #731 which proposes removing it completely.

(commits can be squashed.)

@Insti Insti changed the title Robot name clarification Robot name uniqueness clarification Apr 24, 2017
@Insti Insti mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2017
Random names means a risk of collisions. Your solution should not allow
the use of the same name twice when avoidable. In some exercism language
tracks there are tests to ensure that the same name is never used twice.
Random names means a risk of collisions. Your solution should ensure that
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was wondering if we should replace "should" with something more strong, like "must".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

great suggestion 👍

@ErikSchierboom ErikSchierboom merged commit e0d0615 into exercism:master May 9, 2017
@Insti Insti deleted the Robot_name_clarification branch May 9, 2017 08:27
emcoding pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 19, 2018
meta: Remove the pull request template.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants