Fix raindrops exercise structure and add minimal guidance
I came across this example while moving down the learn path.
There is no information in the task description to know what function the tests will call. I had to get this from the tests, which I think is easy for someone like me but perhaps too much to ask of a student new to C and working through the learn path.
Further it took me a while to spot there was a header file that needed to be defined.
Some clarification, but Raindrops is a practice exercise, not a concept exercise. Concept exercises are intended to teach/reinforce a particular concept so they tend to be more guided, while practice exercises are more arbitrary and can be solved several different ways.
Practice exercise instructions also come from a canonical upstream repo that all 71 tracks pull from so they can’t be too specific. The intention is for students to review the test suite to understand what the tests expect for your particular track. If the instructions contradict the test suite, the maintainer at their discretion might decide to have an instructions append file that adds track-specific information clarifying the exercise or providing more context to the end of the current instructions from upstream.
OK well thank you for clarifying what I experienced.
Raindrops is one of the exercises for Strings on the C++ learning path.
Even in the tests there is no clear statement of the function type.
If the student is expected to review the tests that should be stated explicitly as this is not the default expectation from online coding problems.
This will be my last message I have no desire to interact further with this community.
In this case the raindrops was an aberration, it did not fit in with the experiences of the other questions, I tried to fix this with a PR adding a simple comment, and now I am on this forum being told actually im wrong and actually everything is fine.
Good luck and goodbye.
You’re not at all, actually. No-one has said you’re wrong about anything. There’s been zero judgement of whether the issue is valid or not. Someone has provided extra context information, which is useful for everyone else reading this to further consider the question.
But if you managed to interpret Andras’s comment in such a negative way, this probably won’t be a productive discussion, so I agree it’s probably best for you not to continue interacting here.
I think I’ve heard this before.