The SumOfMultiples Haskell exercise is not clear on what the sumOfMultiplesDefault function should do

[habibalamin]

I struggled to comprehend what the README was saying on what sumOfMultiples should do, but it says nothing about sumOfMultiplesDefault.

[kytrinyx]

The README is not language-specific, it just describes the generic problem, and then whichever language tracks want to implement the exercise with whatever they need to make it idiomatic.

I can't speak to the Haskell exercise. @etrepum is there something we can do to make this less confusing?

[petertseng]

I'm pretty sure that sumOfMultiplesDefault should be for the test suite only. Students shouldn't have to implement it at all. The fact that there is a "default" of [3, 5] is a detail of the test cases and implementations shouldn't need to know about it.

[petertseng]

Unfortunately I have to eat my words. The README says no factors specified means default to [3, 5]. So that's what sumOfMultiplesDefault is asking for. That's what I get for jumping to conclusions without reading the README...

So I guess we're back to the question of "how to make this clearer?"

[habibalamin]

Looks like the README was already updated the day I created this issue. Look at the latest commit date on the README you linked.

[petertseng]

Ahhhh good eye; I totally missed that. In that case, maybe with the change to the README it is now clear enough, and the problem is solved...?

[habibalamin]

I wouldn't be able to say, I'm afraid, since I now know what's required, my perspective is almost moot. It's definitely clear_er_. I guess we close this issue, and if someone else opens a similar issue, we'll know, right?

[petertseng]

I guess we close this issue, and if someone else opens a similar issue, we'll know, right?

I suppose that is reasonable.

I liked the proposal of "no defaults!" better, but that solution requires at least a change to the readme and a sweep through all tracks implementing that problem to see whether they do the right thing, and that may be a project for another day (though there is related work tracked at https://github.com/exercism/todo/issues/20 and https://github.com/exercism/todo/issues/154)

[habibalamin]

If the option of no defaults is on the table, I would say that's preferable too, but of course, it's the choice of whoever has to go and do that work.

[kytrinyx]

If the option of no defaults is on the table

Yeah, that's always an option.

I don't have the bandwidth to think through the pros/cons of "no defaults", but if someone else can make a good case for it, I'd be happy to write up the issues etc.

[kytrinyx]

I've opened a ticket in x-common to make the "no defaults" change: exercism/problem-specifications#198

[petertseng]

Closed by exercism/problem-specifications#198