Anonymous user
Talk:Hash join: Difference between revisions
added "clarification" queries. -- ~~~~
(Now a task) |
(added "clarification" queries. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 2:
:Agree on the draft status for now. And despite the, er, fireworks accompanying its creation, I suspect it'll be a good task. I don't see how the built-in-ness of hashes plays one way or the other. The task merely assumes that an appropriate hash implementation will be used, whether built-in or imported or implemented as part of the solution. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 04:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
:: And it is now a full task, with 5 implementations (right now). I'll do a bit more editing (adding in a print requirement and giving test data) but that won't break the existing implementations. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 10:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
==clarification needed==
Is Popeye's entry to be '''not''' listed, either because it has no nemesis, or because it wasn't in the 2nd relation list? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Can the nemeses (plural) be listed on one line (as the REXX example shows)? To me, it looks cleaner, more succint, less screen (output) clutter. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||