🚀 go-pugleaf

sl14@crux5.cit.cornell.edu (S. Lee) wrote:

>In article <4fp1ks$h6r@solutions.solon.com>,
>Steven Huang <sthuang@hns.com> wrote:
>:In article <4fjnch$oqq@solutions.solon.com> tangent@cyberport.com (Warren Young) writes:
>:  A B C D E F G ... Z
>:A A B C D E F G ... Z
>:B B C D E F G H ... A
>:C C D E F G H I ... B
>:: : : : : : : : ::: :
>:Z Z A B C D E F ... Y

>:The students were supposed to match each character in a plaintext string
>:with each character in a key string to produce the ciphertext, as an
>:exercise to string handling.  Of 21 students, none realized that the
>:table can be computed.  Many actually typed in the lookup table, one
>:even read it from a file.  I tend to blame this phenomenon on TV and
>:debuggers ;)

>First, you don't need a lookup table.  The function is just S1[i] - S2[i]
>+ 'A'.  I catch it when I read the table, but I already know how to
>handle strings.

>Second, it is imaginable that you phrase the question in such a way that
>your students thinks they have to code a table, because they think that is
>what you want them to do.  I've seen 'clever' solutions being dismissed

     ...which means they didn't do enough analysis.  Imagine, in the
RW, coding X just because you didn't bother to ask the user what he
really meant.  I'd fire for that if it was severe enough.

>because they are not what the instructor has in mind.  For example, you

     Get the specs.  This includes what the instructor has in mind.

>can argue computing the table doesn't work if you are not using ASCII.
>_Sometimes_ students just play safe, they're not dumb.

     Playing it safe is dumb in this case.  You should go out and get
the real specs.

>sl14@cornell.edu
>Witty .sig under construction.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

C Pronunciation Guide:
     y=x++;     "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
     x=x++;     "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"