Jump to content

Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included): Difference between revisions

m (→‎failure of ooRexx using Classic REXX example: added some comments, corrected a misspelling.)
Line 44:
:The task notes address this. Why do you think them inadequate? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 
First of all, the task should be redefined to '''enforce computations during the run time''', because 5**(4**(3**2)) can be precomputed or computed in a compile time (esp. in Haskell-like). Secondly, there is no need to say ''"do not submit an implementation of arbitrary precision arithmetic".'' ProgramDe MUSTfacto, to solve this usetask some kind "arbitrary precision arithmetic" (20 digits at least) must be used- either as an internal feature or as an external module/library. Finally, see "pure C solution" - it is '''ugly, but it SOLVE''' the problem., Thereforebut theit noteis criticized as "this example is incorrect". It is not justified in any way, because the Rosseta Code is not a code golf competition and the length of the source code is not revelant.
 
--[[User:Anonymous31415927|Anonymous31415927]] ([[User talk:Anonymous31415927|talk]]) 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.