Anonymous user
Talk:Long multiplication: Difference between revisions
→Wrong algorithms
(→negative numbers: added verbage to the comments.) |
|||
Line 82:
::::So far, I implement the most interesting solution, which is not always the shortest solution. <i>Sometimes</i> I implement both as the generalised code versus the one-off code when such a comparison is useful/interesting/informative.
:::: [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] ([[User talk:NevilleDNZ|talk]])
::::: Perhaps the task should be defined in two parts - one to represent the intermediate results, the other to go from the intermediate results to the final results?
::: I do not really see a point in asking for the code in languages where arbitrary precision is already builtin. For one, it should not lead newcomers of a language to do it that way. And second, as the builtin operators are usually highly tuned to the task, which a naive piece of code usually is not. ALso, I found other languages, where it seemed perfectly ok to write a comment like "is native in language", so I think that should be also ok for languages like scheme, self, smalltalk etc. And b.t.w. what about languages which support an int128 type (eg native limited. but higher precision integer type). Are those allowed to use it or not?
--[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 15:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
== PLI Fails for me ==
| |||