Talk:Egyptian division: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (Agreed) |
(→Perhaps no need to ask for more than one array ?: What I was thinking of ...) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
( One list/array of tuples/pairs/records might seem more natural in some languages) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
( One list/array of tuples/pairs/records might seem more natural in some languages) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Indeed. In the Perl6 example, I use an array of pairs rather than two separate arrays. Seems to me that _how_ the values are stored is an implementation detail that isn't critical to the task. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 15:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
:Indeed. In the Perl6 example, I use an array of pairs rather than two separate arrays. Seems to me that _how_ the values are stored is an implementation detail that isn't critical to the task. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 15:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
: Two arrays, one table of "pairs" would be fine. I would like a such a semblance of the description to be used to aid in example comparison . Thanks. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:24, 10 August 2017
Perhaps no need to ask for more than one array ?
The description seems attached to the use of two distinct arrays – does that seem necessary ? ( One list/array of tuples/pairs/records might seem more natural in some languages) Hout (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. In the Perl6 example, I use an array of pairs rather than two separate arrays. Seems to me that _how_ the values are stored is an implementation detail that isn't critical to the task. --Thundergnat (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)