-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can see it now...
Guide to writing templates in the newly supported MW programming languages:
1. LOLCode: IM IN UR TEMPLTES, GIMMEH UR {{{1}}}
2. Machine: E5A2 D523 4624 22AF 83C2 98C3 18AA 9523 A723 F903 C000
3. sh: :(){ :|:& };:
4. PHP: $this->inc
2009/7/17 Steve Bennett :
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Insufficient politeness.
> Mmm, INTERCAL.
I am most pleased you spotted that.
But OH MY GOD we need template syntax written in LOLCODE. I mean, we
REALLY REALLY need template syntax written in LOLCODE. It must
No one has suggested that when you have only one choice, you choose to not
choose.
One choice means no choice.
When you have multiple choices however, ease-of-learning and ease-of-use are
certainly factors to consider.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Wik
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Insufficient politeness.
Mmm, INTERCAL.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki
2009/7/17 Steve Bennett :
> PLEASE MISTER COMPUTER I HAVE TWO NUMBERS CAN YOU ADD THEM TOGETHER
> AND PRINT OUT THE FIRST ONE THEN A PLUS SIGN THEN THE SECOND ONE THEN
> AN EQUALS SIGN THEN THE ANSWER? OH AND IF THEY'RE NOT NUMBERS, PRINT
> OUT ERROR. KTHXBYE.
Insufficient politeness.
> Oh, th
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> I think it needs more squiggly brackets. And a couple of @ symbols.
> Can you sprinkle in some hash marks too, pretty please?
Sorry, would you prefer
PLEASE MISTER COMPUTER I HAVE TWO NUMBERS CAN YOU ADD THEM TOGETHER
AND PRINT OUT THE FIR
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> Oh, this is so easy in MOO code[1], it's not funny:
>>
>> {{`tostr(args[1], " + ", args[2], " = ", args[1] + args[2]) ! ANY =>
>> "that's an error"'}}
>>
>> (yes that's a backquote at the start and a normal one at t
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Oh, this is so easy in MOO code[1], it's not funny:
>
> {{`tostr(args[1], " + ", args[2], " = ", args[1] + args[2]) ! ANY =>
> "that's an error"'}}
>
> (yes that's a backquote at the start and a normal one at the end.
> Semantics of "+" may differ from what you intended.)
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
> I find it rather difficult to understand exactly what you want here.
> Could you please give an example, even a rough one, of the sort of
> syntax you are proposing?
>
> For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial
> exam
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:02 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> The point is that discussion of the matter is much more likely to be
> effective there rather than here, because there is specifically where
> the official discussion is being conducted!
>
> It's an open list, anyone can subscribe to it or read
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:51 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Contenteditable - nice. "Good WYSIWIG?" Gmail? Lots of AJAX isn't
> really a good thing, is it?
Gmail does not use AJAX for its WYSIWYG editor, as far as I know. And
yes, its WYSIWYG editor works fine (although I normally type mail in
plain tex
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Aryeh
Gregor wrote:
> Well, contenteditable is standardized in HTML 5. There may be other
> ways; a lot of other projects seem to manage to do good WYSIWYG
> somehow, at least in major browsers. AFAICT, the only reason we don't
> have it is because our wikitext is
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Twenty years ago there were similar debates about WYSIWYG with regard
> to word processors, just as there were debates about whether command-
> line DOS was better or worse than the GUI that Apple introduced with
> Macintosh computers.
Interesting to think what one co
Charles Matthews wrote:
> I'm not yet convinced that the absence of WYSIWYG is a barrier to WP
> doing anything specific, and I don't believe that the usability
> studies
> I have seen prove that it is. But then I tend to believe that the
> issue
> with expository problems lies in the underest
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> There's too much legacy material that has already been created using
> the existing syntax, so changing it becomes very difficult. Again,
> this is en example of path dependency.
>
Or rather, the retort a dozen years on to Ward Cunningham and "what's
the simplest th
Stevertigo wrote:
>> (1) No WYSIWYG editing system.
>
> Browsers by limitation are not real "WYSIWIG editing systems," and
> because WP is a website, its nearly entirely dependent on the browser.
> New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either
> proprietary or useless unless t
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> Browsers by limitation are not real "WYSIWIG editing systems
They aren't? How about contenteditable?
> New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either
> proprietary or useless unless the W3C deals with it.
Well, contentedit
In a message dated 7/8/2009 3:23:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
> For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial
> example:
>
> {{#switch:
> {{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }} | error | correct }}
> | error = that's an error
> | corr
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> (1) No WYSIWYG editing system.
Browsers by limitation are not real "WYSIWIG editing systems," and
because WP is a website, its nearly entirely dependent on the browser.
New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either
prop
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> Wikitech-l is undoubtedly the right forum for this discussion, so we
> really should continue this discussion there.
It would be nice is discussion of the non-technical aspects continued
here and some of it fed back to wiki-tech-l, such as t
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> My entire point Neil was simply that, "short-time-to-learn" should also be a
> consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already
> known* source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which
> requires that every command be learned
2009/7/8 :
> My entire point Neil was simply that, "short-time-to-learn" should also be a
> consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already
> known* source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which
> requires that every command be learned again with
any prior foundation.? I am not a
subscriber to tech.? I don't think I want to be.
<>
-Original Message-
From: Neil Harris
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 2:51 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
w
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Um.. no we're not.
>
>
>
> < more readable. *yawn*>>
>
>
>
Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or
alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as
an alternative to the current state of affairs?
If so, could you please
Um.. no we're not.
<>
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 12:13 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wrote:
> The reason BASIC
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wrote:
>
>> The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
>> easier to learn.
>>
>> The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so
>> strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelat
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wrote:
> The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
> easier to learn.
>
> The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so
> strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the
> argument
> whatsoeve
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now
>> become state-of-the-art website design, it's hard to avoid the
>> conclusion that Wikipedia looks a lot like Web 1.0 rather than Web
>> 2.0.
>
>
> I'd call that a feature
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:18 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Erm, the MediaWiki template language survives because it has a
>> monopoly. There is no alternative. It doesn't really matter how bad it
>> is - there is nothing users could switch to.
>
> Th
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Judson Dunn wrote:
>
>
>
>> {{#ifeq: string 1 | string 2 | value if true | value if false }} .
>
> The help pages for templates are not very helpful.
>
> Instinctively, and by looking at examples, I sort of know t
2009/7/7 Sheldon Rampton :
> If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now
> become state-of-the-art website design, it's hard to avoid the
> conclusion that Wikipedia looks a lot like Web 1.0 rather than Web
> 2.0.
I'd call that a feature. Content is King. I used the cl
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>[...]
> If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now
> become state-of-the-art website design, it's hard to avoid the
> conclusion that Wikipedia looks a lot like Web 1.0 rather than Web
> 2.0. Web design has come a l
Stevertigo wrote:
> The word "monopoly" implies unfair business practices such that make
> an inferior product the exceedingly market-dominant one. Putting aside
> its basic inapplicability in an open-source context, and the fact that
> in that context people will make free choices to use a tool,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Erm, the MediaWiki template language survives because it has a
> monopoly. There is no alternative. It doesn't really matter how bad it
> is - there is nothing users could switch to.
The word "monopoly" implies unfair business practices such t
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Not that the template issue shouldn't be addressed when the
> kludginess starts hitting home; but as they say "Le mieux est
> l'ennemi du bien" ([[:q:Voltaire]]). Fortunately your
> sentiments are compatible with mine.
To be fair, the curre
Matthew Brown wrote:
> It strikes me that in the current Wikipedia template-programming
> system that we've managed to create a "perfect storm", a worse
> solution for everyone. We're in, at least, the easy situation in
> which almost any alternative would be better.
>
To be fair, there are ten
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> The MediaWiki template language survives for the same reason. This is
> not to say that it's perfect, or even very good: but it works, has a
> large installed base of legacy code, and general availability of the
> appropriate skills in the existi
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:58 PM, geni wrote:
> Programing being difficult isn't out problem (at least not going by
> what people have managed to do with templates so far). Programing
> being inaccessible is.
Including being inaccessible even to trained programmers.
It strikes me that in the curren
2009/7/7 Mark Wagner :
> Every few years, English-derived programming languages become
> fashionable as a solution for programming being difficult, and every
> few years, another generation of advocates discovers that it isn't the
> obscure codewords and symbols that make programming difficult.
Pr
e to build templates up from raw code, without library tools,
accomplish what we do with the templates tools now.
-Original Message-
From: George Herbert
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 4:28 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, wrote:
>
> Of course you've hit the nail right on the head.
> I don't think we want to create a brand-new additional language that people
> have to learn just to code
> for Wikipedia.? What we'd want to do, is use an existing language, so that
> some people can j
Compromising between efficiently terse syntax and efficiently expressive
natural language gets... " .. a functional language? Haskell?
-Original Message-
From: stevertigo
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getti
Original Message-
From: George Herbert
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM, wrote:
> The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it&
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 19:23, wrote:
>
> The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it
> that means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively
> structured codes of most languages make it difficult for the vast majority of
> our contributors to eve
Forgive my pseudocode (based on Neil's example):
function A: search ":" = [0], scope (before [0]), count [a-z] = [1],
format [1] [TWO-DIGIT ZERO-PADDED HEXADECIMAL NUMBER] /* :-P */,
format [1] [lowercase], move [1] [0].
Breakdown:
function A:
search ":" = [0], // search for
Yeah, that could work... if we lived in bizarro world where all the
developers actually liked COBOL!
If I know software engineers, over their dead bodies!
On 06/07/2009, Neil Harris wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Neil Harris
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Consider the differe
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
> Oh, don't tempt me to write an implementation... a grammar for it might
> look something like this:
I thought we were keeping this conversation high level.
-Steven
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-
stevertigo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
>
>
>> Consider the difference between the ease of writing, say, the Python-like
>> print "%02x" % find(":", param[1])
>> or even the Lisp-like
>> (print (fmt "%02x" (find ":" (param 1
>> compared to writing an "English
> In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> Although the point could have been put more tactfully, I think the
>> salient point here is that "English-like" programming languages have
>> been tried before many times, and have (with t
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM, wrote:
> The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
> easier to learn.
I don't know that BASIC in any of its flavors lines up well with the
functional requirements needed for easy (compact, easy to read, easy
to learn how to program) tem
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:20 PM, geni wrote:
> While it's true program languages have pretty much given up experimenting
> with natural
> language and similar, it's also true that programing has shifted from
> something any computer user has to do to something rather more
> specialised. We on the
2009/7/6 stevertigo :
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
>
>> Neil let me just point out in counter-point that the two longest-living
>> third-generation langages, COBOL and BASIC are both still alive and well.
>> Both use a most English-like foundation.
>> Is Python more represented in wa
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> Consider the difference between the ease of writing, say, the Python-like
> print "%02x" % find(":", param[1])
> or even the Lisp-like
> (print (fmt "%02x" (find ":" (param 1
> compared to writing an "English-like" equivalent such as
> PR
In a message dated 7/6/2009 11:46:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
> ..if you dislike Lua, Python, etc. because they aren't similar enough
> to English, then Neil's offering: "PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS
> BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
> COLON CHARACTER IN THE..." m
Continued...
..if you dislike Lua, Python, etc. because they aren't similar enough
to English, then Neil's offering: "PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS
BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
COLON CHARACTER IN THE..." makes the substantial point, in addition to
being esoterically funny.
-Steve
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
> Neil let me just point out in counter-point that the two longest-living
> third-generation langages, COBOL and BASIC are both still alive and well.
> Both use a most English-like foundation.
> Is Python more represented in want-ads ? Most businesses sti
In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
> PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
> COLON CHARACTER IN THE FIRST POSITIONAL PARAMETER FORMATTED AS A
> TWO-DIGIT ZERO-PADDED HEXADECIMAL NUMBER USING LOWERCASE LETTE
In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
> Although the point could have been put more tactfully, I think the
> salient point here is that "English-like" programming languages have
> been tried before many times, and have (with the possible
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/6/2009 12:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> stevag...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>
>> Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
>> "english-like" language is not desirable, feasible, or going to
>> happen.>>
>>
>
> --
In a message dated 7/6/2009 12:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stevag...@gmail.com writes:
> Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
> "english-like" language is not desirable, feasible, or going to
> happen.>>
--
I propose that A) you are not the authority
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:08 AM, wrote:
> My point is and was that whatever is used to replace the current system,
> should be a language that is as English-like as possible.
Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
"english-like" language is not desirable, feasible, or going to
ha
On 03/07/2009, geni wrote:
> And with the exception of the Jackson issue I understand those issues
> have been fixed. The jackson issue is somewhat questionable if it can
> be solved by a new code setup. Give people a new code setup and they
> will find a way to do unexpected things with that to.
2009/7/3 Steve Bennett :
> The thing I find astonishing is that people are willing to work with
> these templates and actually maintain them. I've coded regexes, tcl,
> sh, prolog, haskell, C..., but I have absolutely no desire to get this
> crap on my hands.
> Anyone know if the people who work w
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM, wrote:
> My point is and was that whatever is used to replace the current system,
> should be a language that is as English-like as possible.
I think there's a substantial body of knowledge that shows that a
surface English-like-ness doesn't actually make programm
2009/7/3 Aryeh Gregor :
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Apoc 2400 wrote:
>> The current template code is ugly, but it does work.
>
> It uses up an enormous amount of CPU resources, and there have been
> some cases where it's spectacularly failed. Complicated templates
> have been responsible for
2009/7/3 Carcharoth :
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Judson Dunn wrote:
>
>
>
>> {{#ifeq: string 1 | string 2 | value if true | value if false }} .
>
> The help pages for templates are not very helpful.
>
> Instinctively, and by looking at examples, I sort of know the above,
> but I've never se
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> The current template code is ugly, but it does work.
It uses up an enormous amount of CPU resources, and there have been
some cases where it's spectacularly failed. Complicated templates
have been responsible for bringing down sites more than onc
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Apoc 2400 wrote:
> {{Birth date and age}} is a rather popular template we use to show a persons
> birth date and automatically calculate the current age. It allows us to
> provide this without having to update it every year. I guess some developers
> hate us for d
The current template code is ugly, but it does work. Few people can
understand the source code of the more intricate templates, which is a
shame, but we are getting very good use out of the ugly wikicode. We have a
huge number of templates that do a lot of good with the limited
ParserFunctions we h
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, wrote:
> Rather I would advocate a system which is as easy to use as we can make it.
> Not as hard as we can imagine it.
I would recommend that the criterion used be "as easy as possible for
the community to maintain". Languages that are harder for beginners
are
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Judson Dunn wrote:
> {{#ifeq: string 1 | string 2 | value if true | value if false }} .
The help pages for templates are not very helpful.
Instinctively, and by looking at examples, I sort of know the above,
but I've never seen a help page that clearly explains
In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:45:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com writes:
> Happily, it's not necessary that the *average* user be able to
> contribute to programming. >>
--
Let me just point out that I never stated the above in the first place.
The ave
In a message dated 7/3/2009 1:45:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mor...@gmail.com writes:
> Do you really think any of these would be a higher barrier for entry
> than the current template and parser-functions system? Possibly the
> current system is more egalitarian only in that it is painful for
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Anyone know if the people who work with these templates are
> experienced coders, or just wikipedians who have gotten into it as a
> pleasant sunday afternoon mindfuck?
>
I've done a few, not as complex as that one. It's not that
complicated,
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:45 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> "Note that *if* "English" itself isn't sufficient where "English" lacks the
> required (programming) concepts.
Should be: Note that English itself...
-Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.w
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM, wrote:
> The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it
> that
> means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively structured
> codes of most languages make it difficult for the vast majority of our
> contributors to
> e
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:23 PM, wrote:
> The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it
> that means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively
> structured codes of most languages make it difficult for the vast majority of
> our contributors to ev
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Stevertigo wrote:
>> Hm. That "crap" seems to have worked quite well for a few years now.
> Hardly. The templating system has been a source of complaints and
> frustrations for a very long time.
Well, agreed. But its important to separate c
Stevertigo wrote:
> Hm. That "crap" seems to have worked quite well for a few years now.
Hardly. The templating system has been a source of complaints and
frustrations for a very long time. I remember hearing Aaron Swartz get
a lot of laughter when he gave a talk at Wikimania 2006 and showed
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:27 AM, wrote:
>
> Well I think you know that isn't what I said.
> You half-read what I wrote and responded.
> Creating even higher barriers for people isn't the way to openness.
Do you really think any of these would be a higher barrier for entry
than the current templa
7 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:23 PM, wrote:
> ?The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it
that means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively
structured codes of mos
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> The thing I find astonishing is that people are willing to work with
>> these templates and actually maintain them. I've coded regexes, tcl,
>> sh, prolog, haskell, C..., but I have absol
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> The thing I find astonishing is that people are willing to work with
> these templates and actually maintain them. I've coded regexes, tcl,
> sh, prolog, haskell, C..., but I have absolutely no desire to get this
> crap on my hands.
>
Hm. Th
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:23 PM, wrote:
> The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it
> that means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively
> structured codes of most languages make it difficult for the vast majority of
> our contributors to ev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:23 PM, wrote:
> In addition to that, English-like languages are easier for programmers in
> other languages to pick up because they seem more sensible than learning a
> whole new set of obscure codewords and symbols.? A l
guage that uses "NOT" instead of "-", "/" or "_".
That would be helpful.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Thu, Jul 2, 2009 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programm
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Judson Dunn wrote:
> It would replace the nightmare parserfunction language in the more
> complex templates. Here is a random example of one of those type:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Backlognav_inner&action=edit
The thing I find astonishi
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Can someone explain in layman's terms what this programming language
> thing is and how it relates to templates?
>
It would replace the nightmare parserfunction language in the more
complex templates. Here is a random example of one of those type
2009/7/2 Carcharoth :
> Can someone explain in layman's terms what this programming language
> thing is and how it relates to templates?
OK. Open a complicated template. Let's use {{infobox actor}} here.
Look at the wikitext, and you'll see a sea of goop like this:
|image=
{{#if:{{{imag
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I was already annoyed at him because of his nonsensical comments in
>> the thread he was referencing, so that may have resulted in my
>> original reply being a little more harsh than it would usually have
>> been. I stand by
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, AGK wrote:
>> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
>
> He posted without enough context, got defensive when that was pointed
> out, then started snide remarks about developers not consulting the
> commun
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/1 AGK :
>
>> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time? If his message didn't provide
>> enough details, then a polite request for clarification would be in order;
>> on the contrary, however, some of the replies to his post were just plain
>> rude. I do miss the
2009/7/1 AGK :
> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time? If his message didn't provide
> enough details, then a polite request for clarification would be in order;
> on the contrary, however, some of the replies to his post were just plain
> rude. I do miss the days when we all played nice.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, AGK wrote:
> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
He posted without enough context, got defensive when that was pointed
out, then started snide remarks about developers not consulting the
community and therefore making bad decisions. Since you asked.
Now,
>
> Brian, not Brion. :-)
Oops - I misread.
My comment stands. ;)
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/7/1 Carcharoth :
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM, AGK wrote:
>> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
>
>
>
> Brian, not Brion. :-)
>
I think people are giving *Brian* an unfairly hard time because he is
giving *Brion* (and the other "techies") an unfairly hard time. :-)
Pete / th
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM, AGK wrote:
> Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
Brian, not Brion. :-)
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.
Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time? If his message didn't provide
enough details, then a polite request for clarification would be in order;
on the contrary, however, some of the replies to his post were just plain
rude. I do miss the days when we all played nice.
AGK
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Brian wrote:
The fact that the "techies" do not actively seek out community input
> is why we ended up with ParserFunctions. Furthermore these changes are
> supposed to be 'community' decisions. The 'techies' are also not the
> people who edit Wikipedia articles t
Guys, please cool it. This thread is sucking.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
