Anonymous user
Talk:Function definition: Difference between revisions
m
moved Talk:Creating a Function to Talk:Function definition
m (→Lisp, BASIC: I just noted that I had forgotten to sign my previous entry; fixed that) |
m (moved Talk:Creating a Function to Talk:Function definition) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
"multiplication" is a somewhat ambiguous mathematical operation depending on the data type. I don't think it's a big deal, I am assuming that the arguments are supposed to be scalars and such, but in a vector language like IDL where one rarely encounters scalars, there is a distinction to be made between "product of the elements of the vectors" or "inner product of the vectors" or "outer product of the vectors" or "matrix multiplication". Just figured I'd mention this somewhere... [[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 19:08, 4 December 2007 (MST)
: I was just looking around, and I noticed it was ambiguous for another reason: It's commutative. A non-commutative operation might be more appropriate for scalar arguments. I'm not sure about other types such as vectors or functors. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
== Lisp, BASIC ==
Line 8 ⟶ 9:
And of course, Scheme is ''not'' Lisp, but a separate (but similar) language, which BTW also has several dialects.
:: Out of curiosity: what is the distinguishing mark that makes you say that? I.e. what difference is "so big" or "so significant" that you would say "it is a different language" as opposed to "it is a dialect of the same language". I'm asking because I once had a professor that considered C and FORTRAN and similar imperative languages to be mere "algol dialects". [[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 18:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the example which I wrote (and which, not surprisingly, turns out to be identical to the Common Lisp example) should work in any Lisp.
Line 33 ⟶ 36:
:: Well, the differences in BASIC are far greater: It isn't even possible to write a (non-empty) ''do-nothing'' program which works both in original BASIC and current languages using that name.
:: It certainly doesn't make sense to have both Lisp and Common Lisp here (it would make sense if Common Lisp had significant differences relevant for that task). IMHO it would however be reasonable to move the Common Lisp example to "Lisp" --[[User:Ce|Ce]] 08:01, 2 March 2008 (MST)
No actual programmer is going to be "writing a program in Lisp" — they're going to be writing it in <insert Lisp dialect here>. I think the examples should be categorized according to how a practicing programmer would identify the language they're working in. Therefore, there should be a "Common Lisp" example. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 08:23, 2 March 2008 (MST)
: Having the example listed under "Common Lisp" signals that it's specific to Common Lisp, which it isn't. Of course one could add identical examples for all Lisp dialects, but I don't think that would be a good idea. --[[User:Ce|Ce]] 09:03, 2 March 2008 (MST)
:: Perhaps having the code example under Lisp would be appropriate if there was an intra-page link from Common Lisp pointing to it? --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 20:13, 2 March 2008 (MST)
== SNUSP, Falcon ==
I don't think either of these actually do what the task description asks for...[[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 18:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
| |||