Talk:Parsing/RPN calculator algorithm: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(→‎Graduation to task: new section)
m (→‎Graduation to task: brought up the question of correctness of treating the data as characters, not tokens. -- ~~~~)
Line 2: Line 2:


This seems to be a task that is well understood and which is attracting implementations from many different types of languages. Is there any reason to not graduate it to a full task now? –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 12:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be a task that is well understood and which is attracting implementations from many different types of languages. Is there any reason to not graduate it to a full task now? –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 12:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

: Several programming examples are treating the input as characters instead of tokens, and this is working because there are no multi-digit numbers, and no numbers that contain a decimal point, and no numbers that are expressed in exponential notation (such as 3E27), and no numbers that have a leading sign, and no multi-character operands (such as '''**'''), etc. Should those programs be considered incorrect? (Just because they come up with the correct answer, doesn't make it correct. Hurrumph!) -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:56, 14 December 2012

Graduation to task

This seems to be a task that is well understood and which is attracting implementations from many different types of languages. Is there any reason to not graduate it to a full task now? –Donal Fellows 12:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Several programming examples are treating the input as characters instead of tokens, and this is working because there are no multi-digit numbers, and no numbers that contain a decimal point, and no numbers that are expressed in exponential notation (such as 3E27), and no numbers that have a leading sign, and no multi-character operands (such as **), etc. Should those programs be considered incorrect? (Just because they come up with the correct answer, doesn't make it correct. Hurrumph!) -- Gerard Schildberger 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)