User talk:Arseniiv/Factorization: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m →numbers as names: sign |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:::: Looks good! Though maybe also alternatively use <code>^</code> for powers? --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 21:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC) | :::: Looks good! Though maybe also alternatively use <code>^</code> for powers? --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 21:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
::::: I read it only now (same idea nearly at the same time🙂). I think <code>^</code> looks better, it's now also possible to stuff space around the operators. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:37, 7 November 2020
numbers as names
I'd try pseudo-positionals in this case. I already found out that you can write {{some template|1=value containing the '=' character}} if you have positional parameters with alternative names. This should also work if we ignore 1, 4, 6, 8, 9 and so on. What do you think? --Xenwolf (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- O, sorry, I see: not possible because of the 16-parameter limit. --Xenwolf (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe prefixes instead? We could use the regex extension, see Template:EDOs for an example. --Xenwolf (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please have a look on SandBox#Testing factor notation, only unsolved problem here is the trailing dot. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)