User talk:Ce

From Rosetta Code

I had to simplify the description of your programming task. As it was, it would have been very difficult to implement in languages other than C++. I moved it to the new Language Features category, where it will get more love. --Short Circuit 14:11, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Humming a beatles song Love, Love, Love... Nha, just correcting a typo :) --CrashandDie 14:23, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Well, there was a reason why I added "(where applicable)" to most of the subtasks. Note that for C++ references, several of the tasks were not doable as well, which I explicitly noted. I think it's also good to explicitly know that a certain thing is not supported in a language, rather than just no one bothered to write how to do it. Also, if some other language has a pointer/reference feature which isn't in C++, then it would be good to explicitly note that it's not possible in C++.
The "Language Features" category is a good idea, however. --Ce


Hey. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind stopping by Rosetta Code:Wiki Wishlist, and perhaps leaving a few thoughts of your own. Also, do you use IRC? --Short Circuit 12:50, 1 March 2008 (MST)

Hi, to answer your question first: No, I don't use IRC.
BTW, the Village Pump doesn't seem to know my user name. If I try to log in, it always tells me that this user name doesn't exist. (BTW, why am I not automatically logged in there when I'm logged-in in the Wiki?) --Ce 13:09, 1 March 2008 (MST)
The wiki and forum are separate. You'll have to sign up again for the forum. It's kind of annoying, but not that bad. Maybe that can be a wishlist item. --Mwn3d 16:15, 1 March 2008 (MST)
Thanks. Now it is a wishlist item :-) --Ce 07:22, 2 March 2008 (MST)
I've looked into integrating the Village Pump and Rosetta Code. The problem is, all of the solutions I've found involve having MediaWiki authenticate against SMF (the forum software), as opposed to having SMF authenticate against Mediawiki. --Short Circuit 20:25, 2 March 2008 (MST)


Kinda off topic so I put it here if you don't mind. In response to this comment:

(from here: "" )

Of course a random number checker like this will report a perfect random distribution if your "RNG" returns the sequence "1234567123456712345671234567..."

Can you prove that the sequence you named is NOT random? A truly random RNG should produce all kinds of sequences, including a sequence just like the one you mention. Just saying. ;-) Sgeier 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would have exactly the same probability as the sequence "1111111111111111111111111111...", which would be rejected by the tester. The point is, in both cases we have a model which gives the data with significantly higher probability than pure randomness (in the specific cases here, the probability is 1 for the deterministic model vs. 1/7^28 for pure randomness). Of course, strictly speaking all PRNGs should be flagged non-random because we have a model which fits perfectly - the algorithm for the PRNG. However, if the PRNG is good, you cannot guess the algorithm from the output. --Ce 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads-up on the Pascal booleans. It's been 16 years since I wrote my last line of Pascal code. :-) --Snoman 10:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sematic Mediawiki Queries

By the way, you can play around with SMW queries using the Special:Ask page. You can play around with the query until it outputs what you expect, and then a click on the "Show embed code" link will show you the resulting inline query code. --Coderjoe 19:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. --Ce 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)