Anonymous user
User talk:Gerard Schildberger: Difference between revisions
m
corrected a couple of misspellings.
m (corrected some misspellings.) |
m (corrected a couple of misspellings.) |
||
Line 486:
: Well, you say I am claiming that it does, and you are claiming that it doesn't. When you put it like that,
:it sounds like my opinion is being
:want me to do besides "claim" the facts? By the way, not ALL languages with "bignum" support do it with a
:a base bigger than 10. REXX does not. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Line 492:
::Yes, I'm saying that not only REXX does it, *all* of the bignum libraries do it. The fact that some random library uses base 10 or base 256 or 65536 or whatever is irrelevant since the algorithm is the same for all of them, and re-implementing this algorithm is as bogus with any language as it is with REXX. The page seems like it requests an explicit implementation, regardless of bignum support or how its implemented, and if that's taken as is, then the REXX answer is wrong because it does not implement the algorithm. Like I said on the discussion page, I really don't care either way, but it should be clear which way it should go -- and if an implementation is required it is extremely unfair to single out about 3 solutions as broken when in fact many others on the page are broken. --[[User:Elibarzilay|Elibarzilay]] ([[User talk:Elibarzilay|talk]]) 07:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
::: No, REXX does explicit arithmetic not with BigNums, but with a method that people use when doing arithmetic on paper. There is no base 10 in that the numbers are stored as characters, not a array of numbers in base 2, base 10, or possibly a higher base. REXX does NOT perform arithmetic like any other
::::It looks like you're not aware of how bignums are implemented: an arbitrary-length list of "digits". Operations are implemented in terms of these lists. Usually, the digits are big with each one being a machine word. But it doesn't matter if you use a smaller base-10, everything works the same, and the resulting algorithm *is* what you would do on paper.
| |||