Talk:Ethiopian multiplication: Difference between revisions
(→Formatting problem or whatever: new section) |
(→Formatting problem or whatever: -- ok I need a rest: my understanding of it was simply wrong (because of indentation:D)) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:You do have to create a function. the intent is for it to be a named function where the name should indicate the functions purpose. I am hoping hat most contributors will go with the intent. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 18:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
:You do have to create a function. the intent is for it to be a named function where the name should indicate the functions purpose. I am hoping hat most contributors will go with the intent. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 18:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: You can clarify the task, and then mark the tasks which don't quite comply. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
:: You can clarify the task, and then mark the tasks which don't quite comply. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Formatting problem or whatever == |
|||
It seems to me like the code at HicEst is a little bit "eaten" but trying to edit the whole page I've seen it is not a formatting problem, rather it seems there's a missing part for real. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:17, 26 March 2010
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)
- You do have to create a function. the intent is for it to be a named function where the name should indicate the functions purpose. I am hoping hat most contributors will go with the intent. --Paddy3118 18:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- You can clarify the task, and then mark the tasks which don't quite comply. --Michael Mol 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)