Talk:Parsing/Shunting-yard algorithm

C and missing functionality

What is the process for a task missing functionality when it could, but isn't yet provided. I can't remember the tag we have for "Please improve", but I guess it would go well with the current C entry that seems to be not written with the full task goals in mind. --Paddy3118 19:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for {{improve}}? If you're ever looking for a template, try Category:Example attention templates and Category:RCTemplates first. What is the C example missing? --Mwn3d 19:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It was missing either a prominent explanation of why it cannot provide the output requested in the task description or it needs that output; it also lacked the example from the task description, the lexing of which is designed to be straight-forward and so allow code to concentrate on the shunting-yard part.

There is no indication of the form of any output - the task requires a space separated string of tokens and this feature directly links to the other two tasks linked to from the task description that take that space separated RPN and either calculate the value or convert it back to an infix expression (whilst asking that you display what is happening in key data structures). --Paddy3118 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

{{improved}}! --Paddy3118 05:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Improve Description

This seems to be about infix to RPN but it doesn't say it explicitly. --Dgamey 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dgamey, from the wikipedia article:

"In computer science, the shunting-yard algorithm is a method for parsing mathematical expressions specified in infix notation. It can be used to produce output in Reverse Polish notation (RPN) or as an abstract syntax tree (AST)."

The title reflects that it is this shunting-yard algorithm that is to be used in transforming infix to, in this case, RPN. --Paddy3118 09:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a minor nit I know but it didn't say it. I made a slight tweak in the description. Not everybody knows algorithms by name or remembers if they have broader application. Nor does everyone read the WP article. (Good set of tasks though). --Dgamey 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great criticism Dgamey. Ideally I'd want to put enough on the RC page to make it complete in itself, but sometimes the linked-to wikipedia page is quite rich (and I feel a little lazy ...) --Paddy3118 06:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)