Talk:Stem-and-leaf plot: Difference between revisions
m
lang tags replaced by syntaxhighlight
m (lang tags replaced by syntaxhighlight) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 40:
:: I would prefer we leave out negatives. Stem plots look crap for negative numbers. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::: I rather agree about leaving out negatives, it does complicate the programming. It took a few extra REXX statements to handle the case of '''-0''' and '''0''' to be handled as separate indices. It would be nice to have a companion Rosetta Code task to handle negative numbers (and also zeroes). An '''extra credit''' at this late point would be a day late and a dollar short. '''But''', I disagree about the stem plots looking like crap for negative numbers. See the output for the 2<sup>nd</sup> REXX version. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
:: Should I appear smug at this point? ;) --[[User:Glennj|glennj]] 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Line 55 ⟶ 57:
243 109 226 66 179 201 61 84 93 83 181 88</pre>
::: Generated using:
<
randomize=: ] /: 0 ?@$~ #
showStemLeaf dat=: (84 20,:184 40) ([: randomize ,@:(<.@:rnorm"1 0)) 30 30
Line 81 ⟶ 83:
│25│ │
│26│7 │
└──┴─────────────┘</
--[[User:Tikkanz|Tikkanz]] 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
| |||