Anonymous user
Talk:Range extraction: Difference between revisions
m
fixed typo.
m (→Inverse of Range expansion task?: added that some programs fail with different ranges. -- ~~~~) |
m (fixed typo.) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== Might I suggest ...==
Might I suggest breaking the format description out to a separate page and transcluding it both here and in [[Range expansion]]? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Line 57 ⟶ 58:
==Comment in Ada solution on notation==
:''"For real-life applications it is better to use the notation -9..-4"''
True. if I were doing this for real then I would have liked to use a different range indication character, but, as in so many things, I modified/simplified an [http://www
==TUSCRIPT example==
Line 73 ⟶ 74:
Of course, primes '''2''' and '''3''' would be a special case. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
:With the requisite commas added of course :-)<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 05:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that the commas would make the gaps (indicating primes) less visible:
: 4,6,8-10,12,14-16,18,20-22,24-28,30,32-36,38-40,42,44-46,48-52,54-58,60,62-66,68-70,72,74-78,80-82,84-88,90-96,98-100
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry Gerard I didn't mean for you to go and make the change, I was jokingly making a reference to the rigidity of the spec for the format. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
|