Talk:Truth table

Inspiration

Inspired by a mention of truth tables here (Thanks Mike), which reminded me of an old blog post of mine. --Paddy3118 07:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Always glad to inspire :). --Mwn3d 13:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Which operators?

Just to get ahead of a possible question, which operators should this program support? And, or, and not are pretty much locks, but do we need implication operators? Xor? --Mwn3d 13:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And, or, not as a minimum; but if the rest are just more of the same then they could be left out for brevity. --Paddy3118 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From a website I found, the ^ boolean operator is an AND and almost all examples here seem to use it as as the $C$ XOR operator. This same website didn't even mention (or use) the & [AND] operator. The list that I used is in the REXX example. I'll change it if the consenus say that's incorrect, since there seems to be a very heavy $C$ influence in Rosetta Code. I think it may be better to have consistency in the coding and examples. -- Gerard Schildberger 20:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In C, ^ is the bitwise XOR operator. --Kernigh 20:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the REXX coding example to comply with $C$

They probably used ^ for and to go along with the $\land$ and $\lor$ operators from discrete math. I think it's fine to use whatever standard you like as long as you note it. --Mwn3d 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As for which boolean operators to support, the task description is (to me) pretty clear: boolean equation(s) are all or any boolean expression(s), whether or not your language of choice only supports two or three (or a few more). I've included all sixteen boolean operator names in the REXX language example; I hope the boolean operations are named correctly, there are many variants). Also added is support for the TRUE and FALSE boolean values, as well as boolean conditionals (comparisons). -- Gerard Schildberger 06:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)