Talk:Ethiopian multiplication

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 that 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)

X86 Smaller version

I propose rewording this as something like "More representative of assembler languages without the use of explicit multiplication ops", as it already doesn't follow the letter of the task description w.r.t. separate functions, and I would not want it to become some contest in minimalism. How say you? --Paddy3118 07:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar entries for Unix Shell but also Bash

How to amalgamate? --Paddy3118 12:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)