Talk:Special variables: Difference between revisions
(→On what to include: Too much work?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==On what to include== |
==On what to include== |
||
I would think that a Perl entry would be very long. Should a Python entry include things like sys.argv? Again, if it should, then there would be a large number of such and it probably wouldn't help when comparing languages as not much could be got from comparing Pythons list with AWKs for example. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
I would think that a Perl entry would be very long. Should a Python entry include things like sys.argv? Again, if it should, then there would be a large number of such and it probably wouldn't help when comparing languages as not much could be got from comparing Pythons list with AWKs for example. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
I would have expected sys.argv to be listed, but I am not familiar with python, so I don't know what such an entry would look like. If sys just a single variable with an element argv, then we could probably just list it as sys, and provide some explanatory notes and maybe a cross reference to some other documentation. |
|||
--[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Should special function names be included (e.g. "main" for lots of languages)? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Should special function names be included (e.g. "main" for lots of languages)? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
I hadn't planned to include function names here. My initial thought is stay within the scope of "special variables". We could possibly cross reference to tasks relating to function names, or possibly just makes some comments if one affects the other, or the distinction is blurred. |
|||
--[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Every definition of the Python standard library could be taken as a "special variable". I think this task is fine forAWK, but could lead to too much work to be practical for Python. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Every definition of the Python standard library could be taken as a "special variable". I think this task is fine forAWK, but could lead to too much work to be practical for Python. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
I think we could just place a comment that this is so without listing the contents of the library. |
|||
--[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:46, 2 June 2011
On what to include
I would think that a Perl entry would be very long. Should a Python entry include things like sys.argv? Again, if it should, then there would be a large number of such and it probably wouldn't help when comparing languages as not much could be got from comparing Pythons list with AWKs for example. --Paddy3118 19:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I would have expected sys.argv to be listed, but I am not familiar with python, so I don't know what such an entry would look like. If sys just a single variable with an element argv, then we could probably just list it as sys, and provide some explanatory notes and maybe a cross reference to some other documentation.
--Markhobley 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Should special function names be included (e.g. "main" for lots of languages)? --Mwn3d 19:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't planned to include function names here. My initial thought is stay within the scope of "special variables". We could possibly cross reference to tasks relating to function names, or possibly just makes some comments if one affects the other, or the distinction is blurred.
--Markhobley 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Every definition of the Python standard library could be taken as a "special variable". I think this task is fine forAWK, but could lead to too much work to be practical for Python. --Paddy3118 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we could just place a comment that this is so without listing the contents of the library.
--Markhobley 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)