Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included): Difference between revisions

:::I note the remarks in the Algol68 example about strictly speaking, and so therefore, those entries that involve external features or explicit routines for performing multi-precision should indeed be ejected as not conforming to the task's statement, strictly. Otherwise, we face mere variations of something like <include library>...<eval(5^4^3^2)> with specious differences not elucidating the language facilities. Entries for the likes of Alore and bc amount to that but without the "include" because the necessary facilities are built-in to the language. Only some libraries amount to being a part of the language, as with C's stdio.h. I'm interested in the historical changes in a language as features are introduced or removed and generality is attained or implemented with limits - so no INTEGER*2000 for example, even though in principle this could be allowed, somewhat as in Algol68 - and was amused by the thought that the IBM1620 could perhaps have succeeded, and the IBM1403 also? These represent a possible development path in this matter that was not taken and anyone interested in language comparison would be interested in such decisions. As for what's more useful, someone seeking to solve such a problem "right now" via perusal of RC to select a language for immediate use would want to know which languages had built-in facilities or not. And reading the task description, would expect to see just that, and if for example bc was available, success would be moments away. But with libraries required there would be a delay, unless the library was overwhelmingly available so as to seem a part of the language and even more delay for supplied routines. Thus I am speaking against the inclusion of libraries or specially-written routines, as per the task specification for this specific task.

:::As for organising another task with or without this or that, I leave that to others as already, many flowers bloom and I wander without guide. There does not seem to be a facility for grouping related tasks, or multiple parts of a larger task, or even cross-referencing tasks. Just a flat list of tasks ordered alphabetically and with not always helpful choices of the first word. A tree-structure? But the A.B.etc, B.X.etc ordering won't work when it is not clear which should be the first-level keywords. This is a matter for the design of RC's presentation, which I know little about, and I see a lot of scope for disagreement. [[User:Dinosaur|Dinosaur]] ([[User talk:Dinosaur|talk]]) 07:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 

== Criteria for Non-Draft? ==