Talk:Long multiplication: Difference between revisions

::::: Perhaps the task should be defined in two parts - one to represent the intermediate results, the other to go from the intermediate results to the final results? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 15:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

::: I do not really see a point in asking for the code in languages where arbitrary precision is already builtin. For one, it should not lead newcomers of a language to do it that way. And second, as the builtin operators are usually highly tuned to the task, which a naive piece of code usually is not. Also, I found other languages, where it seemed perfectly ok to write a comment like "is native in language" (sidef) or even a call to BigInt arithmetic (D), so I think that should be also ok for languages like scheme, self, smalltalk etc. And b.t.w. what about languages which support an int256 type (eg native limited. but higher precision integer type). Are those allowed to use it or not? As I understood rosetta, it should give programmers a feel of how the language is used, not how its builtin operators are implemented. --[[User:Cg]] ([[User talk:Cg|talk]])