Talk:Truth table: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (changed my typo from OR ---> XOR.) |
m (→Which operators?: compliance with <math> C </math>) |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:: In C, <code>^</code> is the [[bitwise operations|bitwise XOR]] operator. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 20:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC) |
:: In C, <code>^</code> is the [[bitwise operations|bitwise XOR]] operator. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 20:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: I've changed the <tt> REXX </tt> coding example to comply with <math> C </math> |
Revision as of 20:52, 28 April 2012
Inspiration
Inspired by a mention of truth tables here (Thanks Mike), which reminded me of an old blog post of mine. --Paddy3118 07:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Always glad to inspire :). --Mwn3d 13:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Which operators?
Just to get ahead of a possible question, which operators should this program support? And, or, and not are pretty much locks, but do we need implication operators? Xor? --Mwn3d 13:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- And, or, not as a minimum; but if the rest are just more of the same then they could be left out for brevity. --Paddy3118 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- From a website I found, the ^ boolean operator is an AND and almost all examples here seem to use it as as the XOR operator. This same website didn't even mention (or use) the & [AND] operator. The list that I used is in the REXX example. I'll change it if the consenus say that's incorrect, since there seems to be a very heavy influence in Rosetta Code. I think it may be better to have consistency in the coding and examples. -- Gerard Schildberger 20:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- In C,
^
is the bitwise XOR operator. --Kernigh 20:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- In C,
- I've changed the REXX coding example to comply with