Anonymous user
Talk:Pernicious numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Wiki link removal: added a comment about underscoring links.
(→C solution too cryptic?: yes it is) |
m (→Wiki link removal: added a comment about underscoring links.) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 5:
:OK, I understand now. I added some comments in the code. Hope it's ok.--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 15:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:: Er yeah, it was pretty cryptic, and your analysis is absolutely correct. But I changed the routine again for something faster, though I did put in some comments this time. I didn't retain the "0b010011..." literal format since it's a GCC exteinsion, but if you want it back in I'm not really troubled by it. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
==Wiki link removal==
Why was the Wikipedia link removed (for Pernicious number) ? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The "hidden link" to Wiki's link within the definition of ''pernicious number'' isn't obvious unless one hovers over it and then Rosetta Code then underlines/underscores it, indicating that it's a link (either that, or my eyes are getting really bad). I can't see the harm on having an explicit link listed with the others. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||