Talk:Casting out nines: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 31:
:::: Agreed. I've changed the task description, do you prefer it? People should not now protest that your casting out of nine is superfluous. It has made it longer, so they may not thank you either. --[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
::::: The new task description seems overly ambigous. For example, in J, I could define the check digit as 9&| or I could define it as +/&(10&#.inv)(^:_) and I see nothing in the current task description to prefer one over the other (except that my existing implementation already uses the shorter version, and in general useless extra code is probably a bad thing -- if nothing else it's usually slower and harder to read). Meanwhile, the application of this mechanism seems completely ambiguous. ... from your above paragraph I was expecting new requirements, but I can't really figure out what they are. I suppose I could replace 9&| with (co9=: 9&|) but that name would be misleading in the general case... anyways, I'll do the naming thing on one of my examples. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
| |||