Anonymous user
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/FBSL Categorization Question: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/FBSL Categorization Question (view source)
Revision as of 08:27, 12 November 2013
, 10 years agoIdiomaticity is a good guide
(added a note about two progra entries (solutions) being deleted. -- ~~~~) |
(Idiomaticity is a good guide) |
||
Line 13:
: ... not to mention the various LISP flavors. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 10:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
:: I don't think there's any problem at all in having FBSL entries in their own right, provided the idiomatic way of achieving the task at question is significantly different in FBSL than other BASIC variants. (Goodness knows, they vary a ''lot''.) The difference could even be down to different typical availability of libraries (though if that's the case, it should be documented with {{tmpl|libheader}} of course).
:: All I'd like to avoid is having the same thing written out multiple times, or entries that just say “see this other entry”. The former is wasteful, and the latter sucks as the users of the ''other'' language won't easily see that there's strong syntactic similarities; we can use multiple {{tmpl|header}} macros in one heading if necessary, and that creates better usability and discoverability. (This is what I was encouraging the Icon/Unicon entries to do; AIUI, they're often the same, but not always.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 08:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
-----
| |||