Anonymous user
Talk:Binary digits: Difference between revisions
m
→Natural numbers: changed the wording slightly. -- ~~~~
(→A mess?: Nice and ...) |
m (→Natural numbers: changed the wording slightly. -- ~~~~) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 53:
:::Nice and fuzzy? No, nice and precise! I'm sure that there may well be other ways to get to precise, but being nice makes the journey more enjoyable. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
== Natural numbers ==
:Any question about zero from the wp link description shouldn't really matter for the purposes of this task. What does matter are that it ''doesn't'' include negative numbers with absolute value greater than zero. I'm sure someone could pick holes in this if they tried, but I think the clarification in the linked text should be OK for the purposes of the task. (But then I did add the link). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:: I think the matter of zero is very important to this task as some of the example programs don't handle the case of zero correctly, in that some example programs remove ''all'' leading zeroes, and in the case of a value of zero, a "null" value is returned. Since almost all program examples don't show the case for zero, it's hard for casual readers of other languages to recognize that (if) the error exists in the code (of specifically handling a zero case). I didn't flag those program examples as '''incorrect''' as I don't have a definitive way of proving my observations. It's a trivial case, but still important. Rockets blowing up, anyone? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
::: I concur Gerard. examples should work for zero but it is hard to check if output for zero is not shown. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 20:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
:::: Yes, indeedy. I previously hurriedly added the special case of zero to the two REXX versions (to at least ''practice what I preach''). What prompted my comment above was that the '''NETREXX''' version had an error in it, but I couldn't verify that as I don't have a NetRexx interpreter. I'm 99% sure of the error, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it and flag an example as incorrect just on my ''understanding'' of that language (and not its execution). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
== Task review process ==
Would it help for us to have a more structured process for getting tasks from draft to non-draft status? I can see, laterly, that part of the problem with the existing routine is lack of reasonably rapid attention and/or interest when new draft tasks are added. If there's interest, we can implement something. Right now, I've got a consensus-based approach with a minimum-required level of feedback in mind. (i.e. each task would need at least two or three people's input, if only a "looks good to me," and would need to incubate a minimum amount of time) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 10:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think we need to go over the top. We want to incourage innovation and development, not stifle it. Some tasks are more interesting than others, so some tasks may not have high traffic. It is a wiki, so contributors can always add and update the tasks. There may be some developers who are only looking at the non-draft tasks, so the drafts are just not getting attention. I don't think we should make the process more difficult than what it is and we don't want to lose skilled writers because of restrictive policies. We could have a 30 day incubation period to enable tasks to evolve, but I think that is the extent of what we should be doing. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 14:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||