User talk:Mwn3d

Template Question

Hello. I noticed a recent addition I made was tagged with the needs-review template. The needs-review template wording is rather strong, i.e. "may be incorrect". I had added my example to the category as needing attention because I had only solved half of the problem (the brute force side), not because my solution was incorrect. Is there a template other than needs-review that might be more apropos? Russell 22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that we actually have three similar templates and they're all pretty much as strong as the others:

• Template:Clarified-review-example
• Template:Example-needs-review
• Template:Needs-review

I think we need to discuss these (I'll make a topic in the Village Pump in a bit). In any case, I don't think we should just be throwing things in "example needs review" categories without a very visible note on the actual example. --Mwn3d 22:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've recently added Template:Improve which might be relevant. --Kevin Reid 00:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

J house style, Oct 2009

Thanks for your help with creating the J house style sandbox. And sorry for the original improper location -- I couldn't work out how to create an appropriate subpage.

--DanBron 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So the original page you made can be deleted then? I left it in case what I did was wrong. --Mwn3d 15:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I would do it myself but I can't find a "delete" link. --DanBron 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

UnderBot and whitespace

With respect to http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Select_from_Array&diff=67932&oldid=67929: yes, UnderBot strips whitespace like that. So you needn't bother doing it yourself. —Underscore (Talk) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it leave Python and Haskell whitespace? I think both of those depend on it. --Mwn3d 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely, but UnderBot preserves relative indentation, which is all that whitespace-sensitive languages are sensitive to. Actually, both Haskell and Python further require that top-level definitions begin in the first column, so when UnderBot changes

<lang haskell> foo = fie + foe where fie = 2 foe = 3</lang> to <lang haskell>foo = fie + foe where fie = 2 foe = 3</lang>

, it's translating a technically illegal program into a legal one. —Underscore (Talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Haskell doesn't have such a requirement; what it does have is the layout rule, which does apply to "top-level" definitions in modules since they are after a where clause: all items in a layout block must start in the same column. This is legal H98:

<lang haskell> module Main where main = putStr "foo" rain = main</lang>

This is not: <lang haskell> module Main where main = putStr "foo" rain = main plain = rain</lang>

—Kevin Reid 19:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my mistake. Anyway, my essential point is that UnderBot doesn't (to my knowledge) break correct programs. —Underscore (Talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rosetta Code subreddit

Check out:

• http://reddit.rosettacode.org
• http://rosettacode.org/reddit

or even

• http://www.reddit.com/r/rosettacodeorg

I think you'd be perfect as moderator. Are you interested? The pages that get added there show up in the planet. My current thoughts are for the rosettacodeorg subreddit to highlight new tasks and new interesting pages specifically on Rosetta Code. For the time being, I'm not really looking for externally-facing links. --Michael Mol 04:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If it takes any amount of time I should probably wait until the end of this quarter (after the first week of March). I'm taking an extra class right now so I barely have time to do little cleanups when I see the need. Other than that I'm not sure what that responsibility would entail, but I bet I could figure it out. --Mwn3d 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mostly removing inappropriate links, I expect. You wouldn't be alone in that, but it'd be nice if someone got to it once in a while before I did. :) --Michael Mol 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Language/Start and friends

What was wrong with the way they were implemented? I don't remember them looking broken when I left off with them last night; all that was left was implementing templates akin to Template:Language/Property/Generic and Template:Language/Property/URL for more specific things like BNF, HOPL, exec, site, gc, parampass, safety, strength, compat, express, checking, lang and lct. The more specific forms are useful because we can check against their absence or omittence akin to langauge/tasks, and put them as maintenance items in Template:Unimpl_Page. I'm also trying to get away from using parserfunctions so much; it makes some templates more difficult to maintain, IMHO. --Michael Mol 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

When I tried them out in Template:Language beta I got |} showing up sometimes and other times I had tables that never ended. When I moved things around to the way they are now it ended up looking right. So do you want a new template for every parameter? That doesn't seem practical. Also I don't really like the way the naming is going. It's getting too long too fast. I'm not sure what naming scheme would be better. If we want to check anything we will have to use parser functions. I guess I wasn't around to see the plan for this craziness. Was there a plan discussed or did I just go forward with the idea too quickly? --Mwn3d 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Using subpages keeps things clear as to meaning and relationship, keeping the use and meaning of the wiki code clean and maintainable. Having a separate template for every property that needs to behave in a unique way allows the language description block to be built the same way people use Template:Mylang in their user pages. Also, those templates were designed as a replacement for the existing Template:Language; you should have something like:

{{Language/Start}}
{{Language/Property/Generic|key|value}}
{{Language/Property/Generic|key2/value2}}
{{Language/Property/URL|url|anchor name}}
{{Language/End}}

Presumably, the use of the template set in Cateogory:Oz would look something like this:

{{Language/Start}}
{{Language/Property/URL|url|Official Site}}
{{Language/Property/Garbage Collected|yes]]
{{Language/Property/Parameter Passing|By reference}}
{{Language/Property/Type Safety|Safe}}
{{Language/Property/Type Strength|Strong}}
{{Language/Property/Type Compatibility|Structural}}
{{Language/Property/Type Expression|Implicit}}
{{Language/Property/Type Checking|Dynamic}}
{{Language/Property/URL|url|On the HOPL}}
{{Language/Property/LCT|Oz}}
{{Language/End}}

(URL could be made more specific for Official Site and/or HOPL, though I'm not too pleased with the current HOPL links; they rarely wind up pointing to the language in question.) Which would strike me as a bit clearer than

{{language|Oz
|site=http://www.mozart-oz.org
|checking=dynamic
|gc=yes
|LCT=yes
|strength=strong
|express=implicit
|safety=safe
|compat=structural
|parampass=reference}}

... Does that make sense? --Michael Mol 04:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense, but it doesn't look any clearer to me. If you look at the result and the parameters side by side, it's pretty clear how they match up. I like the named parameter method, but I'm not the boss. I'm not sure if this new method will help with ease of use either. If people can't figure out the named parameters (which is a complaint I've seen a few times even though there are explicit directions on the template page and numerous examples of use), I don't think they'll figure out this business either. It seems like directions for this method would have to be scattered across a bunch of template pages. As far as comparing it to the mylang stuff, that table lent itself to a setup like this because we didn't want to add a new parameter for every language that came up (even though we could have if we had fewer languages). I can't imagine us ever having more than a dozen or so language parameters, so it's relatively simple to add the named parameters. I like having everything packaged in one template. At the very least, doing it all in one will keep the order consistent for all languages, which is a usability plus. I guess this can just be recorded as a vote for reworking the original template, but still using named parameters. --Mwn3d 04:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to push the discussion any farther (at least for a while); of all the folks who've helped with site infrastructure, you've been at it the longest. Template:Language has been your Work-In-Progress, and you've taken more initiative in getting it working well than anyone else. It's by and large your template, you've managed and maintained it, and I can leave it to you to maintain. I personally think the way I described is better, but I don't want to overrule you on a template that's been your baby. I also don't think now is the right time to continue any push on it. It can probably wait until summer or later, after the end-of-semester madness has subsided. Let's revisit this some other time. --Michael Mol 05:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re HOPL, Diarmuid and I are painfully aware of the problems. Time's our biggest problem at the moment ... not having much. --Axtens 05:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! Now don't forget about us! You've been too much help over too long a time for me to want to give you up. :P --Michael Mol 12:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on graduating and getting a job. Nice one! --Paddy3118 18:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Link Down

The front page link to wp:programming chrestomathy might need changing to something like: programming chrestomathy. --Paddy3118 05:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Good find. --Mwn3d 06:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. It now gets re-directed. How about a link to the page wp:chrestomathy that shows as 'programming chrestomathy' and does not get re-directed at wp? --Paddy3118 06:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ace. --Paddy3118 07:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still grousing over the fact that they yanked the "program chrestomathy" page; I thought that was useful content. Maybe someone around here can answer my question. --Michael Mol 22:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Organization

wp:List_of_algorithms might be useful in aiding organization. Actually, I'd love to get the majority of those created as tasks. :) --Michael Mol 22:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)