Anonymous user
Template talk:Works with: Difference between revisions
→Splitting the template?: ... and "Tested with" ?
(→Regarding standardized languages: de facto, de jure, de insania) |
(→Splitting the template?: ... and "Tested with" ?) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 11:
:: —[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:: I don't want to get overcomplicated and overspecific on it, because down that road lay madness, and I don't need any more of that. I'm only trying to address the stuff that's easy to roughly address. The particular case I'm interested in at the moment is where the ''de facto'' standard doesn't very far from the ''de jure'' standard, so that one could specify the ''de jure'' standard and indicate deviant implementations if necessary. For cases where the ''de facto'' differs broadly from the ''de jure'', I don't see a long-term effective solution. I ''am'' getting worried about Python 2.x vs Python 3.x, and Perl5 vs Perl6 is a case which has already seen presentation on the site. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
== Tag should flag task as implemented ==
It would be nice if the {{works with}} tag flagged the task as implemented, so that the tasks do not keep appearing on the unimplemented task lists.
[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 19:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:The unimplemented lists are only for languages. The works with tag is for specific versions of languages (which will already be marked as implemented with a {{tmpl|header}}) or compilers/implementations of languages/standards <s>and libraries</s> (which don't have unimplemented lists). --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
== Splitting the template? ==
I believe that the original purpose of the template was to provide the minimum version or standard of the language that provides language features used in the code, or minimum version of a particular implementation that supports an implementation-specific extension used in the code. (Perhaps it would be even better to explicitly state the feature(s) that requires that version.) But in some places, people have also used it to just indicate that the code is "tested and works" on a particular version of some implementation, which is useful but a different type of information. Part of the confusion might result from the name "works with", which sounds like it is for people to "report that it works". Perhaps we should make two templates for each of these uses? The original use (minimum supported version) might be better called "Requires" or something like that. --[[User:Spoon!|Spoon!]] 22:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
:A split to "Requires" and "Tested with" ? "Tested with" might need to allow a list of more than one version. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 14:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||