Talk:Unicode polynomial equation: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
Line 10: Line 10:


I recommend explicitly listing the characters which should be supported, and eliminating the parts of the task description which refer to negative exponents. Another alternative would be to change the task name and explicitly document the syntax being supported. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I recommend explicitly listing the characters which should be supported, and eliminating the parts of the task description which refer to negative exponents. Another alternative would be to change the task name and explicitly document the syntax being supported. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

: I find this task objectionable, if for no other reason than promoting bad typography. The unicode super-/subscripts are only good for when you don't have a way to mark up text. They are generally too small, inflexible, and unpleasant to look at. And, I don't see any practical merit in parsing such strings: I don't see why a human would carefully type out those difficult symbols as input data to a program, and if it's generated by machines, you might as well tell the machine to do a better job by writing structured/properly marked up data. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 03:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:00, 19 November 2011

Openended and misnamed?

This proposal does not limit the syntax in any way. It does not mention parenthesis. Meanwhile, 1+1/x is not a polynomial (and neither is x^1/x), and limiting supported syntax to only that unicode which can represent polynomials would still allow for a variety of ambiguities, such as:

cry
c₁y¹+c₂y²
∑ (1+xⁿ)xⁱ

I recommend explicitly listing the characters which should be supported, and eliminating the parts of the task description which refer to negative exponents. Another alternative would be to change the task name and explicitly document the syntax being supported. --Rdm 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I find this task objectionable, if for no other reason than promoting bad typography. The unicode super-/subscripts are only good for when you don't have a way to mark up text. They are generally too small, inflexible, and unpleasant to look at. And, I don't see any practical merit in parsing such strings: I don't see why a human would carefully type out those difficult symbols as input data to a program, and if it's generated by machines, you might as well tell the machine to do a better job by writing structured/properly marked up data. --Ledrug 03:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)