Anonymous user
Talk:Generalised floating point addition: Difference between revisions
Talk:Generalised floating point addition (view source)
Revision as of 10:14, 30 October 2011
, 12 years ago→Repeating the "why"?
Line 33:
: Yes? I am being lazy here, and asking for a clarification of the task. And, since no sequence was defined, I am being too lazy to derive the sequence for myself. I am also ignoring most of the details of the task -- I am, in fact, not using "floating point" at all here, except as a notation (and that only loosely). That said, I am confident that my implementation will have significantly better performance than BCD for these calculations -- the BCD implementation multiplies by 81 using 81 successive additions where I am just multiplying. That said, performance is generally something we try and ignore on this site (except where it gets in the way). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 09:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have clarfied the definition of the sequence for avoid confusion. I elected to demonstrate the sequence by example as seems to be the easiest way to describe it.
I have removed the reference to "Kudos" as I suspect that this word may be too loaded, and may have resulted in the emotive responses. I will remove other such reference to "Kudos" from my drafts over the next day or so.
I am thinking that the reference to "self" in tasks should be removed: eg
* "I am not currently able to implement the task exactly because I do not quite understand what is being asked for (nor why it would be useful)."
Mostly because "I am" and "I do" look "unencyclopaedic", but also the "I" carries no ".sig" for the general reader to relate to. For me it looks OK in a draft task, but past draft it looks a little strange.
Good luck with the task. Bear in mind a ''test case'' is '''only''' the ''test case''. The real "meat" is the task.
Thanks for the feed back. ;-)
[[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] 10:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||