Feedback Lab 1

[ana-oprescu]

Exercise 1	Comments	Exercise 2	Comments	Exercise 3	Comments	Exercise 4	Comments	Exercise 5	Comments	Exercise 6	Comments	Exercise 7	Comments	Exercise 8	Comments	Bonus Exercise 9	Comments	Bonus Exercise 10	Comments	Total
9	No timing	9	No timing	8	No timing. You are not checking a mathematical fact	9	No timing	9	No timing	8	quickCheckResult doesn't give the smallest number	9	You could have added some testable properties for helper functions (e.g., turning digits into integers and back)	9	-> issues	10	very nice Euler 9;	8	very nice Euler 10: why did you prefer primesBelow to takeWhile?; incomplete Euler 49: why did you use the 3330 difference between tuple members? It was not stated as a must-have property of the solution, just as a property of the example. However, very fast implementation.	9.15

[Oipo]

Regarding the timings, some of us actually do have them, but they're in our individual files. Are you still interested in them? We can add them to the submission if desired.

Regarding Euler 49: this was a simple misunderstanding of the problem, even though it led to the correct result. Thanks for putting it to my attention. primesBelow is the same thing as a takeWhile, see the source code. We prefer it mainly because it conveys our intention better through the name of the function.