Anonymous user
Talk:Box the compass: Difference between revisions
m
→Renaming of a programming language: elided the use of «code» to use highlighting.
m (→Renaming of a programming language: elided the use of «code» to use highlighting.) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 85:
::: Yes, it's a pretty silly task in that respect. I found it easier to change the code than to argue for the obvious numbering. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: It indeed takes a few keystrokes to make the output compliant--but compliant to ''what''? In any event, I'm done arguing, I've said more than enough already. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
===Direction, index, and angle===
When comparing angles and directions as the wp table does, then you have to deal with the issue of ranges. Angles can go beyond representing one turn - directions are merely headings: turn 720 degrees and you end up at the same heading. If the names of the points of the compass in order are enumerated from 1 you end up with an index that has no 33. It makes sense to index the compass points in such a way as they are difficult to remember - hence their recollection in order being a test. Having thirty three and one as indices would be implying that North and North are different headings/bearings/directions which is an absurdity.
In creating the wp table, the author chose to show a mapping between ranges of angles and compass points that goes (just) beyond one turn of angle. They show a second occurrence of North. They show a second occurrence of Norths index too which is 1.
If the tables index were of ranges of angle rather than compass point then we would indeed have a different range and so a different index would be appropriate, ''but that is not the case''.
I must admit that I did not have this argument in full to handuntil now. I must also say though that I did note that the index wrapped and that it seemed right and proper to do so. (Wrapping angles so they end up in 0-360 degree range is commonplace for me, almost like a "normallization for angles", so seeing an index wrap when the direction wrapped rang no bells in my case). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
==Renaming of a programming language==
I hope I didn't break the rules. The (old) entry under '''REXX''' was instead, '''ooRexx'''.
This would be similar to someone entering a '''C++''' entry under '''C'''.
If this isn't acceptable, I would like the know what the procedure is, and should the original poster be told of this?
I didn't like to move an entire (big) programming entry like that, too many things could've gone wrong with my fat fingers and not-so-good eyesight. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 18:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||