Anonymous user
Talk:Binary digits: Difference between revisions
routines that handle several different radices are not always the best choice
(A brief explanation) |
(routines that handle several different radices are not always the best choice) |
||
Line 13:
:::Right. I am talking about at language level, not CPU level here. Some languages allow a binary value to be used natively (from within the language). Other languages do not allow this (and therefore do not have binary support at a native language level). If the language does not have a radix specifier for binary (ie it does not have native support for binary), then we have to do some number crunching or string manipulation to derive the binary value as output. If a conversion routine does not need to be written within that language, because the language already supports this, we can say it handles binary "without conversion". If the language does not provide any native handling for binary, and we have to write some number crunching code, then this is a "conversion". Does that make sense? It will probably be clearer, when some of the conversion routines get pasted in.
[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 18:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Also a conversion routine that handle several different number bases, may not be the best way to handle a conversion to binary. The routines in [[Non-decimal radices/Convert]] are probably best used in generic circumstances when the target base is not known at compile time. If we know we are going to require binary, then dedicated binary handling methods are best deployed. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 18:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||