Anonymous user
User talk:CRGreathouse/lang tags: Difference between revisions
→Using lang for output
(don't use lang for output) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
:: It shouldn't be used for plain output (use <nowiki><pre></nowiki> for that) but it ''does'' make sense for highlighting an interactive session using the solution. Have a care! (Also note that some things that mention C are actually mis-labelled C# solutions; there are problems with interaction with wiki syntax.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Right, lang shouldn't be misused for output. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to have code for a different language in a section; for example, I recently wrote a section in which one language made a messy external call. To clarify I broke that section out (after finishing the code in the other language) in a short snippet marked <nowiki><lang bash>...</lang></nowiki>. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] 18:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
::::: Nearly all the CoffeeScript examples flagged by this report are using the lang tag for interpreter output (interactive sessions, etc.). --[[User:Showell|Showell]] 06:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Also, I was using lang tags for output, because it was the convention that seemed to be established before I started contributing. (I happened to look at CommonLisp, since it's adjacent to CoffeeScript alphabetically.)
::::::: Yes, that's the case for C as well. It really should be phased out in favor of <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tags, except perhaps in special circumstances (REPLs or other interactive sessions, code that outputs code, etc.). [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] 03:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
==Updating the list==
Feel free, by the way, to remove entries when you fix something. Eventually I (or someone else) can regenerate the list but for the time being it's just as easy to edit by hand.
[[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] 19:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||