Anonymous user
Talk:Exponentiation with infix operators in (or operating on) the base: Difference between revisions
Talk:Exponentiation with infix operators in (or operating on) the base (view source)
Revision as of 17:51, 3 November 2020
, 3 years ago→what should non infix languages do?: added wording.
(→Title too confused and long: new title discussion.) |
m (→what should non infix languages do?: added wording.) |
||
Line 19:
:: <blockquote><Quote>This was a problem that stopped me from adding REXX to a couple of Rosetta Code tasks because those tasks used \ (not, ¬, ^, ~, et al) (and/or some other characters) in general expressions.</End Quote></blockquote> Really? Which tasks? (Honest question. I really am curious.) In my experience, most tasks have quite a bit of leeway in ''how'' a particular language entry implements a solution and aren't so rigidly focused on exact syntax. In fact, I can't recall ''any'' off the top of my head that require specific syntax. That kind-of defeats the purpose a chrestomathy. Formatting... ok, yeah, there are some task authors who tend to specify very rigid requirements for output formatting, but again, that isn't syntax. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 15:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
::: The Rosetta Code task that I eluded to had to do with with compiling/interpreting/verifying/converting/parsing program statements/expressions/syntax or some such. In particular, it had to do with (if I recall) the use of a logical infix that was contrary to what/how the language (natively) that I used, so it made the programming (for me) difficult, and I choose not to enter a solution and voted with me feet. I tried searching for (the couple?) of Rosetta Code tasks that I was trying to remember, but couldn't find it as I was apparently using the wrong search keywords. In any case, I don't want to waste my time defending why I chose to NOT enter a programming solution. There are some task authors who are very rigid and even contrary when their tasks are improved or re-worded or have additional information added, I even remember an author who accused me of vandalizing the task, and in another case, even made mockery of me requiring the insertion of commas in large number for easier comparisons and perusing of some largish numbers (that are shown in the output). Not exactly the friendliest place, but there ya have it. Life is short enough without having to deal with such unfriendly people. I guess it depends on how one defines ''very rigid'' requirements. I do not want to argue of what I observed versus what someone else's recollection of Rosetta Code tasks that require (a) specific syntax. As far as I've seen, almost all of the Rosetta Code tasks that deal with a specific notation use (require) a specific syntax. Again, I don't want to belabor these points. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
| |||