I'm working on modernizing Rosetta Code's infrastructure. Starting with communications. Please accept this time-limited open invite to RC's Slack.. --Michael Mol (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Craigd

From Rosetta Code

welcome to RC[edit]

Hi Craigd, welcome to RC and thanks for your support with those great zkl language entries!

You might want to create your User page; (just look at others and follow what they do for things like the table of language proficiency). --Paddy3118 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Section/language name in change summary (or Edit by Section)[edit]

I don't wish to be too pedantic or to discourage your continued fine wiki edits… however:

If you're not already editing by section (using the per section "[edit]" links, enabled by default from your preferences page) could I ask that you do so? If you are already doing this, could I ask that you leave the "/* {{header|zkl}} */ " text at the start of the change summary alone (adding more descriptive text after it).

In addition to pre-filling the change summary, editing by section has other benefits. For one, the preview and change windows are limited just to the relevant section making it easier to work with. But more importantly, the wiki back-end can better handle multiple people making simultaneous changes to different sections if they each do section edits rather than whole page edits.

If for some reason, editing by section doesn't work for you or is otherwise undesirable for you, could I instead ask that you prefix your change summaries with the section name you're editing? Just something like "zkl:" would be sufficient. It can be difficult/confusing to look through the recent changes or per-page history and identify at a glance what is being changed without such things.

Thank you! —Dchapes (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - I assume this note is in response to my rash of updates to my code yesterday. Yes, I always use edit section and when I add a section, I tag the edit with "zkl". As I usually edit a section to add a new one, I had gotten in the habit of removing the default check in summary. Sorry for the brain fade.
No need to apologize, I'm the one nitpicking and asking for something :). Thanks. —Dchapes (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if this is something worth making part of of check in (ie check in just pre/post pends the section to the comment, regardless of the user comment)? I noticed that what I was doing isn't all that rare and I doubt you want to be the policeman on this.

On Anagrams#zkl[edit]

Hi Craigd; Just took another look and now I know that I was confused by your printing of the fours as well as the fives and couldn't work out where they were from? I re-ran my Python code to determine that the wordlist had not changed and (mistakenly) assumed you were using a different wordlist to find twice the number of results. You need to only print the fives as they "contain the most words in them". Thanks. --Paddy3118 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem - I often print out more info than required because it would have been helpful to me when looking other solutions. I'll reformat a bit to try and reduce confusion. CraigD (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Word search[edit]

Hi Craig. The Word_search#zkl entry needs a bit more fiddling: the message must be included completely. Fwend (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Digital filters[edit]

Nice job in translating the digital filter example. I did wonder about the function name. Confusingly, the function probably should be called direct form II transposed rather than butterworth because its the vectors a and b that determine what type of filter is actually is. However, I've only really dabbled in DSP stuff - if some expert can inform us, that would help. (For a long time, I thought this function was the IIR filter but it can do FIR as well.) --TimSC (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I don't know diddly about the math or history of filters so I just picked a convenient name that seemed descriptive. I've changed the name as per your suggestion. -- CraigD (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mayan numerals[edit]

I like your   zkl   rendering of the Mayan numerals.   I was hoping that people wouldn't be using an HTML version, as HTML   tables   don't produce a good-enough version of a cartouche.   It appears that the versions using HTML   tables   use visible grid lines.   What surprised me was the succinctness of your program.   Kudos.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry to take so long to reply, I didn't notice this entry. The CSS solution (because the Perl6 entry looked so good) is about as a straight copy of the Perl6 solution as I could get. I'd rather not use HTML as it is a pain to shove the output to a browser during development. It was hoped that zkl could combine some of the ideas of OOP and functional programing to provide some of the terseness of Perl without the "line noise" aspect.

--CraigD (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)