Talk:Ethiopian multiplication: Difference between revisions
m (followup on flagged tasks) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Flagged tasks without separate named routines for half, double, even== |
==Flagged tasks without separate named routines for half, double, even== |
||
I am sure that most languages could dispense with those requirements of the task spec and create a smaller program, but I think people should refrain and stick to the spec so examples can be easily compared, and the page doesn't get to long. I flagged a number of examples accordingly. It was hard doing this for the x86 assembly - the routine might have been similarly coded in a multitude of assembly languages for machines without multiplication, but in the end - it doesn't answer the task. Sorry. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
I am sure that most languages could dispense with those requirements of the task spec and create a smaller program, but I think people should refrain and stick to the spec so examples can be easily compared, and the page doesn't get to long. I flagged a number of examples accordingly. It was hard doing this for the x86 assembly - the routine might have been similarly coded in a multitude of assembly languages for machines without multiplication, but in the end - it doesn't answer the task. Sorry. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
Technically, the task doesn't stipulate that the routines have to be named. Some languages allow the creation of anonymous functions, so the concept of defining a function might not be entirely clear cut. |
|||
-- [[User:Sluggo|Sluggo]] 04:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:31, 14 November 2009
Flagged tasks without separate named routines for half, double, even
I am sure that most languages could dispense with those requirements of the task spec and create a smaller program, but I think people should refrain and stick to the spec so examples can be easily compared, and the page doesn't get to long. I flagged a number of examples accordingly. It was hard doing this for the x86 assembly - the routine might have been similarly coded in a multitude of assembly languages for machines without multiplication, but in the end - it doesn't answer the task. Sorry. --Paddy3118 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Technically, the task doesn't stipulate that the routines have to be named. Some languages allow the creation of anonymous functions, so the concept of defining a function might not be entirely clear cut. -- Sluggo 04:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)