Talk:Sum and product puzzle: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(→‎Scala: more Explanation needed)
(→‎Scala: (relevance or otherwise to REXX of solutions built around higher order functions))
Line 18: Line 18:
: Perhaps the Haskell or JavaScript versions might seem more legible ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
: Perhaps the Haskell or JavaScript versions might seem more legible ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
:: Still not explicit enough :-( Sorry Meanwhile I added 2 translations where I could understand the source (AWK and GO/ --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:: Still not explicit enough :-( Sorry Meanwhile I added 2 translations where I could understand the source (AWK and GO/ --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
::: Do higher order functions feature in the architecture or traditions of REXX ? If not, the patterns of functional composition used in the Haskell and Scala etc examples may be a little hard to translate all that directly. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:19, 3 November 2016

Remove draft status?

Now that I improved the task description, is this task ready for prime time? --Smls (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it out of draft status. --Smls (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Scala

Could someone in the know please explain these two lines in plain English?

val step2 = step0 filter { sumEq(_) forall { prodEq(_).size != 1 }}

  step2 contains the pairs whose product is unique and ??
 

val step3 = step2 filter { prodEq(_).intersect(step2).size == 1 }

step2 filters the step0 integer pairs for pairs where "For every possible sum decomposition of the number X+Y, the product has in turn more than one product decomposition"
step3 filters the set defined by step2 for pairs where "The number X*Y has only one product decomposition for which fact 1 is true"
Perhaps the Haskell or JavaScript versions might seem more legible ? Hout (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Still not explicit enough :-( Sorry Meanwhile I added 2 translations where I could understand the source (AWK and GO/ --Walterpachl (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Do higher order functions feature in the architecture or traditions of REXX ? If not, the patterns of functional composition used in the Haskell and Scala etc examples may be a little hard to translate all that directly. Hout (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)