Talk:Binary digits: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Has to be a dupe: What the intent appears to be.) |
(→Has to be a dupe: If that's the intent...) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::: The ZX Spectrum Basic solution is also specifically designed for binary, so does not fall under [[Non-decimal radices/Convert]]. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 13:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
::: The ZX Spectrum Basic solution is also specifically designed for binary, so does not fall under [[Non-decimal radices/Convert]]. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 13:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: As a friend of mine observed, the intent seems to be to implement a special-case of those other two tasks, without incurring the overhead of generalization. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::: As a friend of mine observed, the intent seems to be to implement a special-case of those other two tasks, without incurring the overhead of generalization. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::If that's the intent then it needs to be specified better and possibly moved so that the intention is better conveyed (I'm thinking [[Non-decimal radices/Convert/Binary]]). Since [[Non-decimal radices/Output]] doesn't offer much in the way of customization (since the task is to let the language do it), its binary examples would be directly copied to this task. So I think we should disallow those sorts of built-in functions. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||