5 kyu
Three-valued logic
68 of 88pea18013
Loading description...
Interpreters
Logic
View
This comment has been reported as {{ abuseKindText }}.
Show
This comment has been hidden. You can view it now .
This comment can not be viewed.
- |
- Reply
- Edit
- View Solution
- Expand 1 Reply Expand {{ comments?.length }} replies
- Collapse
- Spoiler
- Remove
- Remove comment & replies
- Report
{{ fetchSolutionsError }}
-
-
Your rendered github-flavored markdown will appear here.
-
Label this discussion...
-
No Label
Keep the comment unlabeled if none of the below applies.
-
Issue
Use the issue label when reporting problems with the kata.
Be sure to explain the problem clearly and include the steps to reproduce. -
Suggestion
Use the suggestion label if you have feedback on how this kata can be improved.
-
Question
Use the question label if you have questions and/or need help solving the kata.
Don't forget to mention the language you're using, and mark as having spoiler if you include your solution.
-
No Label
- Cancel
Commenting is not allowed on this discussion
You cannot view this solution
There is no solution to show
Please sign in or sign up to leave a comment.
Nice kata!
Javascript translation
approved by someone?
That was fun but I had a some stumbling in the middle where I could not figure out how to make a test case equal the expected value (on paper, let alone in my program). For some reason, I did not see it right there in the notes, "Always evaluate expressions inside brackets first.". (Not that I should need to be told that).
Haskell translation
This translation modifies the description for markup, spellling, grammar and organisation
Thanks!
suggested tag:
interpreters
Ok.
Neat kata! Lots of different approaches in the solutions.
You should describe the associativity of operators of same kind. See comment below.
description was updated
What is the associativity of operators (if it even matters)?
(that's an issue ;) )
I marked it on the description. It does not matter at all! :)