Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #33900 > unrolled thread

revisiting a prgramming problem

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  revisiting a prgramming problem gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2014-10-14 15:55 -0700
    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-14 18:52 -0700
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-10-21 17:58 +0200
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-21 09:09 -0700
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-10-21 22:18 +0200
            Re: revisiting a prgramming problem rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-23 15:44 -0400
              Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-23 17:01 -0400
              Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-08 21:33 -0800
                Re: revisiting a prgramming problem rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-29 20:40 -0500
                  Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 22:43 -0800
                    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 02:47 -0500
                      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-12-02 11:53 +0000
                      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 05:23 -0800
                        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 09:01 -0500
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-10-21 22:25 +0200
            Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-21 16:10 -0700
              Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-08 21:41 -0800
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-10-21 22:30 +0200
            Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-01 22:45 -0800
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-10-21 23:04 +0200
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-10-21 10:17 -0700
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-22 02:13 -0400
            Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-21 23:26 -0700
              Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-10-22 16:18 +0100
                Re: revisiting a prgramming problem mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2014-10-22 21:27 +0200
                  Re: revisiting a prgramming problem albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-24 10:30 +0000
                    Optimal comparisons for m maximums from n items  (was Re: revisiting a prgramming problem) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-10-24 16:29 +0100
                      Re: Optimal comparisons for m maximums from n items  (was Re: revisiting a prgramming problem) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-25 08:27 +0000
                        Re: Optimal comparisons for m maximums from n items (was Re: revisiting a prgramming problem) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-10-25 18:54 +0100
                    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2014-10-25 13:28 +0200
                    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2014-10-25 14:28 +0200
                    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2014-10-25 15:17 +0200
              Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Gerry Jackson <spam@qlikz.org> - 2014-10-22 21:57 +0100
                Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-22 14:06 -0700
                  Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-10-23 00:03 +0200
                  Re: revisiting a prgramming problem albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-23 14:46 +0000
                    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-23 08:16 -0700
                    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-10-23 19:21 +0100
                      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-10-23 20:02 +0100
                        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-23 20:29 +0000
                    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-10-23 22:23 +0200
                Re: revisiting a prgramming problem awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2014-10-23 00:36 +0200
                  Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-10-24 10:44 +0100
                Re: revisiting a prgramming problem hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-22 17:26 -0700
                  Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-23 00:02 -0700
            Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-08 23:10 -0800
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-08 21:42 -0800
    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-10-15 08:18 -0700
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-10-15 08:18 -0700
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem november.nihal@gmail.com - 2014-10-15 08:57 -0700
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-10-15 17:10 +0100
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-17 21:53 -0400
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-10-15 08:19 -0700
    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2014-10-22 00:30 +0200
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-21 16:07 -0700
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2014-10-22 03:23 +0200
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-22 02:15 -0400
            Re: revisiting a prgramming problem awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2014-10-22 12:52 +0200
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-22 17:19 -0700
            Re: revisiting a prgramming problem awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2014-10-23 16:10 +0200
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-22 02:14 -0400
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-08 23:21 -0800
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-06 02:34 +0000
        Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 08:00 +0000
          Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-12-27 05:15 -0800
    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-29 17:20 +0000
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-29 12:00 -0800
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-02 16:15 +0000
    Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul Sephton <prsephton@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 05:06 -0800
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem Paul Sephton <prsephton@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 05:14 -0800
      Re: revisiting a prgramming problem the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-12-02 05:24 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#33900 — revisiting a prgramming problem

1.3 in sicp book on scheme from MIT

given 3 numbers, produce the sum of the squares of the biggest 2 of 3


can someone provide the solution again and explanation?

thx

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33902

On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:55:23 PM UTC-7, gavino_himself wrote:
> 1.3 in sicp book on scheme from MIT
> 
> given 3 numbers, produce the sum of the squares of the biggest 2 of 3
> 
> can someone provide the solution again and explanation?

This is an easy problem --- you should be able to do this yourself --- your first-ever Forth program!

Start by writing a program that takes 3 numbers and returns the 2 biggest, dropping the little guy. Post your code on C.L.F. for everybody to see!

After you have this first program written, and everybody is cheering for you, write another program that takes 2 numbers and squares each of them, adding the products together. Then you are done!

C'mon Gavino! You can do it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34058

hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> Start by writing a program that takes 3 numbers and returns the 2 biggest,
> dropping the little guy. Post your code on C.L.F. for everybody to see!
 
> After you have this first program written, and everybody is cheering for
> you, write another program that takes 2 numbers and squares each of them,
> adding the products together. Then you are done!
Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34059

Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;

1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok

Oops.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34069

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
> 
> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
Back to the drawing board!

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34119

On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
>>
>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
> Back to the drawing board!

Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of 
testing to prove the absence of errors.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34124

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:44:10 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:

>>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
>>>
>>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
>>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
>> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
>> Back to the drawing board!
>
> Not trying to pick on anyone, [...]

You not picking on someone?  And, within this
semi-hostile group? ...  OK.  Alex W. is now
complaining about Hugh, but Alex M. isn't.

> [...] but this illustrates the fallacy of testing to prove the absence  
> of errors.

Well, testing worked for me, and I'm definately
pro-C.  So, I think that disproves that claim.

Rather, it indicates that:
1) failures which can occur do (Murphy's law), or
2) it confirms Knuth's quip on premature optimization.

The use of the word "premature" in this context conveys
extra meaning, alluding to sexual failure, insulting the
technique.  Most people would simply use the word "early".

Personally, I see the failure as the latter case.  If
Hans and others hadn't been attempting to produce the
most compact or fastest representation, they might've
produced something which was easier to verify and safer
to implement, and which is more likely to be correct
even without any testing.

Somehow, we can't seem to escape the "laws" lately...


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34364

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> > Paul Rubin wrote:
> >
> >> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
> >>
> >> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
> >> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
> > Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
> > Back to the drawing board!
> 
> Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of 
> testing to prove the absence of errors.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick

What is better way to reduce errors?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34702

On 11/9/2014 12:33 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
>>>>
>>>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
>>>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
>>> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
>>> Back to the drawing board!
>>
>> Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of
>> testing to prove the absence of errors.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick
>
> What is better way to reduce errors?

Non-sequitur...

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34745

On Saturday, November 29, 2014 8:41:24 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> On 11/9/2014 12:33 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> >>> Paul Rubin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
> >>>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
> >>> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
> >>> Back to the drawing board!
> >>
> >> Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of
> >> testing to prove the absence of errors.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Rick
> >
> > What is better way to reduce errors?
> 
> Non-sequitur...
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick

logically follows, you said above is bad, so what then is good?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34747

On 12/2/2014 1:43 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> On Saturday, November 29, 2014 8:41:24 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> On 11/9/2014 12:33 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>>>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
>>>>>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
>>>>> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
>>>>> Back to the drawing board!
>>>>
>>>> Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of
>>>> testing to prove the absence of errors.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>
>>> What is better way to reduce errors?
>>
>> Non-sequitur...
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick
>
> logically follows, you said above is bad, so what then is good?

The statement you just made is not correct.  Read my post again until 
you understand what is wrong with what you wrote.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34749

rickman wrote:

> On 12/2/2014 1:43 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 29, 2014 8:41:24 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2014 12:33 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
>>>>>>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
>>>>>> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
>>>>>> Back to the drawing board!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of
>>>>> testing to prove the absence of errors.

There are four aspects to getting Forth Words (and code generally)  to 
perform exactly as it is specified to do so.

1. Write the glossary definition first (before coding) and ensure that it 
states explicitly what you want to happen in clear and un-ambiguous terms. 
Note any limitations you may accept from the code.

2. Perform a thorough Fagan Style Inspection (Intense Static Analysis) that 
checks the code is likely to perform as expected, following the down to 
ensure that called words are used as they expect to be used (right numbr of 
parameters on stack in the appropriate order).

3. Perform a Functional Test to make sure it does as you expect (including 
ensuring you follow every path within the code).

4. Use your imagination to concoct tests that aim to destroy the confidence 
you have in the code you have produced. Better yet, ask someone else to try 
and make it fail (noting fails within its stated limits).

If the above code was meant to have done what I thought it should have done 
(ie:- sum the squares of each of the numbers presented), both tests of it 
failed as both should have returned 14 as the answer. However, as the intent 
wasn't really stated it is hard to be sure if even my guess based on the 
word name is the relevant interpretation.

If it is as I suspect then I probably would have factored out the squaring 
operation and simplified the stack management to make it very clear what was 
going on.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34754

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 2:47:49 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> On 12/2/2014 1:43 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 29, 2014 8:41:24 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> >> On 11/9/2014 12:33 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:44:40 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> >>>> On 10/21/2014 4:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> >>>>> Paul Rubin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>>> Duh.. : sumofsquare over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1 2 3 sumofsquare . 13  ok
> >>>>>> 2 3 1 sumofsquare . 18  ok
> >>>>> Darn, that was the only iteration I didn't test ;-)
> >>>>> Back to the drawing board!
> >>>>
> >>>> Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of
> >>>> testing to prove the absence of errors.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Rick
> >>>
> >>> What is better way to reduce errors?
> >>
> >> Non-sequitur...
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Rick
> >
> > logically follows, you said above is bad, so what then is good?
> 
> The statement you just made is not correct.  Read my post again until 
> you understand what is wrong with what you wrote.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick

I will make this easy, lowbrain:
you said:
" Not trying to pick on anyone, but this illustrates the fallacy of  testing to prove the absence of errors.
I said:
"What is better way to reduce errors?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34757

On 12/2/2014 8:23 AM, the_gavino_himself wrote:
>> logically follows, you said above is bad, so what then is good?

This is the statement with the fallacy.  Can you spot it?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34070

Paul Rubin wrote:

Ok, your turn:

: sumofsquare 2dup > if swap then over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34079

Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
> Ok, your turn:
> : sumofsquare 2dup > if swap then over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;


: ?swap ( a b -- smaller bigger ) 2dup > if swap then ;
: 2biggest ( a b c -- n n ) ?swap >r ?swap nip r> ;
: ^2 ( n -- n ) dup * ;
: sos ( a b c -- n ) 2biggest ^2 swap ^2 + ;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34365

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:10:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ok, your turn:
> > : sumofsquare 2dup > if swap then over max dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
> 
> 
> : ?swap ( a b -- smaller bigger ) 2dup > if swap then ;
> : 2biggest ( a b c -- n n ) ?swap >r ?swap nip r> ;
> : ^2 ( n -- n ) dup * ;
> : sos ( a b c -- n ) 2biggest ^2 swap ^2 + ;

wow code is smaller than scheme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34071

Paul Rubin wrote:

More efficient:

: sumofsquare 2dup > if swap then dup * >r max dup * r> + ;

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34746

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:28:20 PM UTC-4, The Beez wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
> 
> More efficient:
> 
> : sumofsquare 2dup > if swap then dup * >r max dup * r> + ;
> 
> Hans Bezemer

nice

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34072

Paul Rubin wrote:

Look mummy, a BASIC version!

        input a : input b : input c
        if b>c then t=c : c=b : b=t
        if a>b then b=a
        print b*b + c*c

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web