Talk:Arithmetic evaluation: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Arithmetic evaluation (view source)

Revision as of 04:03, 1 July 2019

1,424 bytes added , 4 years ago

m

elided an errant equal sign.

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger

Revision as of 04:05, 24 December 2012 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger (→‎unary operators: should they be supported ? -- ~~~~) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 04:03, 1 July 2019 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger m (elided an errant equal sign.)
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: == assume clean input or do error checking? == Should we assume clean input or do we need to add in error checking? --[[User:Mwn3d\|Mwn3d]] 14:17, 11 December 2007 (MST) :Left unspecified (a solution can do either) [[User:Epsilon]] Line 44 ⟶ 45: <br>  and    5678/(-9*14) <br><br>Can we assume that unary operators should be supported? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] 04:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC) == FBSL Maths Evaluation == FBSL has a full range of string functions to create decent parsers similar to what other languages are doing here. But it would be extremely inefficient, speed-wise, to follow these lines in an interpretative environment having a ready-made ExecLine() at hand. AST's are part of FBSL's intrinsic multilevel parser. Can I consider the task fulfilled as it is? TheWatcher 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC) :Hi, Most of the interpreted languages have eval/exec too, but the second point of the task description specifically stops their straight-forward use: ::''The AST must be used in evaluation, also, so the input may not be directly evaluated (e.g. by calling eval or a similar language feature.)'' :If you have access to your underlying AST then you can do something similar to the Python second entry. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118\|talk]]) 02:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC) ::Hi, Then I guess I'll have to remove this entry until better times... :) TheWatcher 06:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC) ::Again, BBC BASIC here does build an AST with extra parentheses denoting tree nodes. Then it uses the AST as a string input for its intrinsic EVAL() to get the expression result. Is that an acceptable scenario? TheWatcher 06:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC) :::Sounds fine. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118\|talk]]) 07:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)