Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Shared names for languages and implementations: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Somehow, that didn't work.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Vptopic |
|||
|topic=Shared names for languages and implementations |
|||
|summary=What to do about implementation pages when the implementation shares a name with the language |
|||
}} |
|||
What's the appropriate way to make implementation pages when the implementation shares a name with the language (e.g. for [[Inform 7]])? --[[User:Mr2001|Mr2001]] 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
What's the appropriate way to make implementation pages when the implementation shares a name with the language (e.g. for [[Inform 7]])? --[[User:Mr2001|Mr2001]] 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 17:03, 28 November 2010
Shared names for languages and implementations
This is a particular discussion thread among many which consider Rosetta Code.
This is a particular discussion thread among many which consider Rosetta Code.
Summary
What to do about implementation pages when the implementation shares a name with the language
Discussion
What's the appropriate way to make implementation pages when the implementation shares a name with the language (e.g. for Inform 7)? --Mr2001 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I say that we should just keep them the same for now (for one thing, it's a vastly common case, especially for less-common languages), having the page note that it is both a language and an implementation of the language. After all, this is a wiki; we don't need to avoid multiple-inheritance… ;-) –Donal Fellows 10:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Perl used to be a shared implementation/language page. I don't remember why it was changed. Excessive category nesting does mess with the Semantic MediaWiki queries, though. (SMW collapses categories in queries.) --Michael Mol 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)