Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #38829

Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()

Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Date 2019-03-29 10:19 -0700
References <q7lbvc$152e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <And-20190329162634@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <q7lihk$3ut$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Message-ID <5f47e62a-bb2c-4bf4-b048-956bee55a12a@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()
From Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 12:53:18 PM UTC-4, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> I fully agree, and that is how I would implement code "in the real
> world". But as this was an interview technical test, I was given two
> classes and the second one had an empty implementation for
> MergePurgeAndReverseSort().
> 
> I was not allowed to change anything, other than implement the method.
> 
It sounds like they were trying to give you a hint that you shouldn't want to work there.  Normalizing code is the best answer.  That sounds like 3 separate methods.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 15:01 +0000
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 11:19 -0400
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 16:42 +0000
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 13:47 -0400
        Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 13:53 -0400
        Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 19:42 +0100
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 16:53 +0000
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 10:19 -0700
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2019-03-30 11:23 +0200
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-30 11:16 +0000
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 13:20 -0700
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-30 11:21 +0000
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 04:56 -0700
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() bursejan@gmail.com - 2019-03-29 15:40 -0700

csiph-web