Page history
Talk:Type detection
7 November 2017
19 October 2015
Hout
→No signature - you see my point ? It just imposes additional effort and uncertainty on others, to buy a trivial reduction in one's own effort ...
+74
Hout
→Spam attempt ?
+124
Hout
→Spam attempt ?
+209
Hout
→good point - adding the sighature :-)
+74
rosettacode>Bugmenot2
→Spam attempt ?
+486
Hout
→Spam attempt ?
+746
rosettacode>Bugmenot2
no edit summary
+1,594
10 October 2015
Zzo38
no edit summary
+118
Zzo38
no edit summary
+758
Hout
no edit summary
m+2
Hout
→Perhaps "Type detection" could usefully be reworked as '''search a tree''' or '''search a nested list'''
+554
9 October 2015
Zzo38
no edit summary
+395
Hout
→Many tasks are also likely to involve evaluation which is conditional on the type of numeric values – perhaps an index would be more useful than a task ?
+211
Hout
.
m+2
Hout
→safe static checking in Haskell and Java, unsafe static checking in C++, and dynamic checking in Lisp, Scheme, Perl etc
+308
Hout
no edit summary
m+11
Hout
→Could the draft description be coaxed into something useful ?
mHout
no edit summary
m+2
Hout
→Try to coax a spark of spam into useful life as an actual task ?
+2,293
8 October 2015
Hout
→I agree
+160
rosettacode>Paddy3118
→Delete?
+212
Hout
Spam attempt ? Why set up facile non-tasks (easily contributed documentation consultation entries) using shared credentials ?
+658