Paddy3118

Hey, you asked me to comment on the expert tag on duck typing. So i did (talk:duck typing). The page needs work, but i'm no expert on duck typing. Fresheneesz 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why have you removed the Qt example? Only because it isn't directly supported by the language? But it is still duck-typing. Seems I've wasted my time for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.69.128 (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You got it. C++ isn't normally thought of as a Duck-typed language, and even though some library might provide a facility you say is duck typing, (no citation); the library is not a part of the standard distribution of the language and C++ programmers are not taught that C++ is duck-typed. On balance, I thought that the article would be better without mention of C++ and Qt. Please don't give up on Wikipedia because of this one case though. --Paddy (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I made my edit before noticing the history of this article, but it appears that the assumption is that templates cannot be used for duck-typing? By my understanding, duck typing does not necessarily imply dynamic typing or runtime checks, so templates can be used (among other things) to duck-type code. The classic example here would be the C++ algorithms (e.g. std::copy), which are duck-typed (by my understanding) for iterators. If there is a central authority that defines duck-typing to exclude static type checking, perhaps it should be referenced by the article? Zennehoy (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This refers to your multiple deletions of our work on the Duck typing page: I understand that some people (which apparently includes you) associate Duck-typing with dynamic typing. While this is a way to look at it, it is by no means the only one and I would ask you to accept that things can be seen from different angles. It seems more productive to accept and document that rather than to delete work which is anything but wrong. I added a comment about the nature of static tying and duck-typing at the beginning of the Ada section to shed some light. If Wikipedia on the other hand prefers some views over others (by means of who presses delete more often and without any clear reference which would make one view more "correct" than the other), I wonder why I would waste my time on those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Tesis (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tesis. The DT article not only states that the term is used for an atribute of dynamically types languages, it goes further and compares and contrasts DT with other typing schemes often wrongly confused with DT especially by those used to wholly statically typed languages. I suggest you look at those comparisons; read the talk page then suggest why your scheme isn't one of the others mentioned. --Paddy (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Paddy3118, I'm wondering what was your motivation for pluralizing metaphor in the article on set notation. I'd used the singular because I was referring to the phenomenon or practice of metaphor; I did not intend the title of the section to highlight that there were various specific metaphors used in notating sets. My intent was analogous to what might motivate an author to title an article "Ballet in Eighteenth-Century French Opera" and not "Ballets in Eighteenth-Century French Operas."—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Paul, I can now see what effect you were after, but on first reading the section with its multiple metaphors, I thought that maybe the word was its own plural, so looked it up, found a dictionary entry that used the 's' form of the plural and thought the plural would fit better. It is a small point however, that I am happy to concede. I would happily leave the final decision to you. --Paddy (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, in that case, I guess I'll exercise my privilege as original author and revert to singular. Thanks—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Paddy3118. Thank you for your addition of a "External links" section to the Here document article. The external links section generally goes after the a references section if it exists. The basic order is "See also", "References", "External links". See MOS:APPENDIX for more detail. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ta! --Paddy (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Da? Jason Quinn (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, ta :-)
--Paddy (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 13:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:ELNO # 12, which explicitly states, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" as one of the types of sites that should not be linked. Please do not re-add without discussing first, as this is very obviously a violation of that guideline. If you want, we can bring up the issue at WP:ELN, which is the noticeboard for discussing external links; note, though, that the default is always to exclude links until such time as a clear, policy-based consensus accepts including them. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

So you have found it then. Now do you understand it? It very definitely does not say "wikis are basically never valid el" as you first stated - Their is no reason why you should defend initial mistakes, but oh well... Do you know the history of the site? Have you been to the site? Do you understand what is being linked? Do you understand the use of the 24 game as a programming task? --Paddy (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know that the site does not meet the very narrow exceptions required for open wikis, as is evident from Rosetta Code itself--the wiki is so non-notable that I've nominated the article on it for deletion, because I can't find any GNG compliant independent references that support the wiki's notability. So, for your specific points, my main mistake was the use of the word "basically", when I should have said "almost"; that's my fault. But change the word, and the sentiment remains. As for your first two questions, I think I've explained that with my deletion nomination; your last two questions are irrelevant because they can't override WP:ELNO. Please note that even if you could somehow overcome WP:ELNO, you still need to meet WP:ELYES...but that shouldn't be necessary. However, if you want, I'm willing to take this to WP:ELN. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, I'm scared. For wp. I guess I'll join the ever increasing body of those who think wp's editors are ruining the site. I am such an editor. What to do? --Paddy (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've opened a thread at WP:ELN, which you can find at WP:ELN#24 Game. And, of course, I would argue that including links that violate WP:EL are one of the things that ruins Wikipedia...but, I imagine, we might disagree. If you have some rationale as to why WP:ELNO #12 doesn't apply, and, further why WP:ELYES applies, please put them there. However, if you re-add the links again, you'll be edit warring, since the rule is that EL always stay out until there is a policy based consensus to include them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The thread on WP:ELN, which had only one other respondent, found that the site does not meet WP:EL. Please do not re-add it. There is nothing malicious in my removal. I remove all sorts of external links for Wikipedia all of the time, because our purpose here is to be an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Nothing in that site meets WP:ELYES, and it fails WP:ELNO on at least 1 ground. The burden on links is always on the person adding them to justify them based on our very strict criteria. If you continue to re-add those links, you may end up being blocked for edit warring, which is just not good for anyone involved. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Duck typing". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply