Talk:A+B: Difference between revisions

m
added a new talk section so as to properly move the TOC to it's proper place.
m (added a new talk section so as to properly move the TOC to it's proper place.)
Line 1:
==task elegance==
This task is pretty elegant; I suspect it could handily replace both [[User Input]] and [[User Output]]. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 
 
==Formatting==
Line 13 ⟶ 15:
 
:: Ta! --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 
 
===Input Specification===
Line 31 ⟶ 34:
 
:: It's not clear to me what the interpretation of "input stream" would be for a system that doesn't have streams or I/O redirection. Specifically, any computer running without an operating system, such as most microcontrollers. By the way, do I have to edit in the user info, date, and so on as I have done, or is there a better way to add a comment than just clicking "edit"? --[[User:Gatmo|Gatmo]] 03:13 21 January 2014 (PDT)
 
 
===Input specification ("constraints")===
Line 40 ⟶ 44:
 
: The task specifies that we need the sum of A and B and that they are between -1000 and 1000. It does NOT specify that we should not provide the sum when they are out of this range. I believe the intent was that outside of this range the behavior of the program is unspecified. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 10:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 
 
==Fabula?==
Line 48 ⟶ 53:
::::Thanks Kernigh for the reference. I would have thought that the Oxford English Dictionary would have an entry for Latin words in 'common' usage, so I don't feel the need to put back the mention of it in the task. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 18:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 
== LabVIEW ==
 
== LabVIEW ==
While LabVIEW can add numbers, I'm pretty sure that it cannot read stdin (or if it can, it's well beyond my knowledge). Should I add LabVIEW code, mark it as <nowiki>{{omit from|LabVIEW|No Stdin}}</nowiki>, or just leave it for someone else? --[[User:Crazyfirex|Crazyfirex]] 03:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 
==REXX==
 
==REXX==
Siskus: &nbsp; The REXX version 4 you flagged as ''incorrect'' is indeed correct, and it works as described and has been tested.