Anonymous user
Talk:Bulls and cows: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (? is a valid symbol character on TSO) |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 8:
The description says that the digits must be from the set 1 through 9, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulls_and_cows Wikipedia] - and some of the solutions on this page - allow zeroes. Also, the description should probably specify whether or not repeated digits are allowed.
-- [[User:Markjreed|Markjreed]] 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
==malformed numbers==
The task didn't elaborate on what a ''malformed'' guess was, but when I programmed a version (cough-cough, 31 years ago), the user was allowed to guess such things as:
* 12x5
* ..73
* 4 5 7 9
* 7 , , 4
* 42?9
Very inexperience beginners (and most children, see below) begin learning the logic of the game by guessing:
* 1111
* 2222
* 3333
* 5
* 79
until they've found four digits that are in the number, and then narrow it down with their own perculiar logic.
The (original) program was intentionlly written to allow these forms of guesses and reasoning (logic).
It was a goal of the program to not to force any sort of logic or restrictive rules upon the guesser.
If the guesser could think it, it was allowed.
I added program logic to the REXX (version 1) program, if only to comply to what ''malformed'' could mean.
:: (I've since rescinded those restrictions.) -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The original program also allowed any number of ''digits'', and also allowed specification of what ''digits'',
so that it could mimic the game ''Master Mind'', a popular game of that time. This was the default mode.
A comment on the program's pegigree: quite a few of the supervisors (where I worked at way back then) were
allowed to have a (CRT) terminal at home (for working after hours of course, of course), and as a result, their kids could get on-line and play, which back
then, it was quite a treat to play on a computer, and this was before home computers were common. Even at that,
home computers were NOT cheap. Of course, it was against the company rules to use a company's mainframe computer for such
non-business thingys, but almost all the mainframe computers much very much idle after-hours and on weekends, of course.
When asked by my 2nd level supervisor, I glady wrote some games on my own time in EXEC2, a language on the VM/CMS
system. And who wanted to throw rocks at one's own bosses? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 23:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::: (added parenthesized comments and ''mainframe'' words to clarify what kind of computer(s) I was referring to.) -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:Hmm. Thanks for the info on the variants where you introduce a placeholder not-a-number symbol. I guess it cannot match anything and would serve to reduce complexity when someone wants to test what they think they may know about a partial solution?
:If I were playing with more digits then I guess it would allow me to reduce the problem to something I could work out in my head. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 03:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:: Yes, anything not a digit (in this case) doesn't match anything. It's very helpful when your mind is a bit cloudy (like enjoying some down-time after an eighteen hour coding tear), or maybe you're dealing with a "bulls and cows" game variant with more than four digits. Also, kids like to use a NaN guess as they seem to prefer to deal with a smaller subset of logic. Well, ok, ok, so do I at times. I was playing a few games as I always check out the game after I make a change (or an improvement, ha!), and once, I just couldn't find a solution (I had zigged instead of zagged when coding a change), and the "cows" information was wrong. I had to ignore the cows and try only for the bulls. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 03:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::: Does anybody besides me think that was a weird thing to say? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
-----
Note: the above section was re-added and slightly re-formated as I had to retrieve it with cut and paste from my E-mail reader via Rosetta Code's notification of changes. I left the original timestamps intact. All the original line-ends (newLines) [if any] have been lost. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
==javascript==
Used a javascript editor to copy/paste the code but got a ''missing semicolon'' error in function pickNum.
==REXX version 2==
Line 30 ⟶ 83:
The s-removal was to show another way to provide that functionality (if bulls and cows should be changed to fox and geese)
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:: The removal of the '''S''' subroutine wasn't being questioned, only the comment on the example page for REXX version 2 saying that the version 1 code didn't work for all plurals. It was asked if it could fail for the program as coded (for bulls and cows). It wasn't stated anywhere that it worked for all plurals. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 14:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
----
Actually the change of ? to qq was NOT necessary. ? IS allowed on TSO. However, I never use(d) it.
| |||