Template talk:Output?: Difference between revisions
I concur that it should be left up to the language.
(→Don't do this: Not the norm, but useful.) |
(I concur that it should be left up to the language.) |
||
Line 18:
:I don't believe it should be the norm for RC either, but I do think it has advantages in catching wrong implementations ''especially'' where the task goal is to give short, precise output such as in [[Range extraction]] amongst others, where, with the best will in the world, it can be difficult to see that last t to be crossed in ones implementation. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 21:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
::I concur with Kevin that it should be left up to the task. If a language example isn't up to snuff, it can be left to someone with the opportunity to run the code to detect this. Otherwise, there's separate maintenance between code and output, and that ''will'' get desynchronized. An additional reason to not require output comes from a more technical problem...sufficiently large pages don't get emitted by the MediaWiki engine because PHP hits a memory limit. That's why MW warns when editing a page which has become very large. Similarly, large pages exacerbate an issue I've overhead numerous complaints about elsewhere; when someone is looking for something in particular, they don't want to see anything but the two or three languages they're interested in. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
| |||