Anonymous user
Talk:Range extraction: Difference between revisions
m
fixed typo.
(→thanks for the post: new section) |
m (fixed typo.) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== Might I suggest ...==
Might I suggest breaking the format description out to a separate page and transcluding it both here and in [[Range expansion]]? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Line 35 ⟶ 36:
:Hmm, I don't like 'Range compression' as the phrase seems less descriptive of what is happening. It could mean too many other things. 'Range formatting' is more precise, but I like the alliteration of 'Range '''ex'''traction' and 'Range '''ex'''pansion' so far. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
==
Is it intended that the output of the Range extraction task be suitable input for the Range expansion task and vice versa? I.e. that they are the inverse of each other. i.e.:
ordered-list-of-integers == expandRange(extractRange(ordered-list-of-integers))
If this is the case then if a "printed representation of your languages internal list of integers data structure that also reads nicely to humans" is required output for the Range expansion task then perhaps the "printing" functionality would be cleaner as separate to the actual Range expansion function?
Whether these functions are inverses of each other or not I think it would be nice to use the same example set of numbers for both tasks (the one from Range expansion task: -6,-3--1,3-5,7-11,14,15,17-20 would probably be most rigorous).
:::::: Except that some programs fail when the first integer is part of a range (2 were flagged). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
: Hi Tikkanz, It is enough that the range created/expanded is of the specified format, including:
:* No extra spaces
:* Only commas, dashes and numbers
:* etc ...
:Examples should standardize on the range format of the task description (There are some that add spaces and colons for example, that I have flagged incomplete).
:Unfortunately I didn't think of a good example to start off as I did not complete both tasks before creating the task pages, hence the different examples. I think it might be too late now to change? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 07:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
==Comment in Ada solution on notation==
:''"For real-life applications it is better to use the notation -9..-4"''
True. if I were doing this for real then I would have liked to use a different range indication character, but, as in so many things, I modified/simplified an [http://www.ccs.miami.edu/hpc/lsf/7.0.6/admin/jobarrays.html#wp1004400 existing format that used dashes], to allow negative numbers - hence the compromise. (On seeing how easy it was to parse I left it in).
==TUSCRIPT example==
It would be good to both keep the current TUSCRIPT example - noting where it fails to follow the task description; as well as create a fully compliant version. It was pleasantly surprising to see that the language had a built-in routine that could so nearly produce the right answer! --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
==prime number musing==
[Under the category of using a hammer to swat a fly.]
One could use ''range extraction'' for composite numbers to show prime numbers (indicated by the ''gaps'').
For the first 100 composite numbers:
: 4 6 8-10 12 14-16 18 20-22 24-28 30 32-36 38-40 42 44-46 48-52 54-58 60 62-66 68-70 72 74-78 80-82 84-88 90-96 98-100
Of course, primes '''2''' and '''3''' would be a special case. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
:With the requisite commas added of course :-)<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 05:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that the commas would make the gaps (indicating primes) less visible:
: 4,6,8-10,12,14-16,18,20-22,24-28,30,32-36,38-40,42,44-46,48-52,54-58,60,62-66,68-70,72,74-78,80-82,84-88,90-96,98-100
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry Gerard I didn't mean for you to go and make the change, I was jokingly making a reference to the rigidity of the spec for the format. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
| |||