Talk:Cyclops numbers: Difference between revisions
→Nice recursive solution
Line 14:
:Not entirely unlike what bump(half) in the Phix entry does, but then I use left and right to manually step through the product. I guess it could have been clearer if only I had used P(L) and p and l as my "identifiers", when I read the above I cannot help but be reminded of [https://imgur.com/a/fUXHOHH this classic cartoon]. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
::Joking apart do you really want me to compare the Phix entry with the nice recursive, and entirely functional, solution outlined above? There are mutable flags tested with if statements nested four deep. RC's Cartesian product task has a Phix entry which is almost functional, why not use it? I've only just read the Phix entry since you've drawn my attention to it, when I wrote this I was thinking of the Factor entry which follows F# so I couldn't help seeing it. I believe Cartesian product and even Cartesian product map are built in functions of Factor!--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 14:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
| |||