Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
>> easier to learn.
>>
>> The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so
>> strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument
>> whatsoever. I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a
>> bizarre type of hyper-English).
>>
>> I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on
>> Earth.
>>
>
>
> The difference between this thread and the parallel one on wikitech-l:
> that thread quickly focussed on four genuine candidates: Lua, Python,
> JavaScript and PHP. People identified the basic requirements
> (security, speed...) and pointed out the pros and cons of each
> language, in terms of available interpreters, tried and tested
> experiments with sandboxing each, etc.
>
> Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much
> more readable. *yawn*
>
> Steve
>
>
Can we take this discussion back to wikitech-l now, please, and focus on
specific, concrete proposals for syntax reform and/or language replacement?
-- Neil
Hello,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Version said that the version of
Commons is r55629.
Now my question is why there is no Upload-API on Commons? The truck hold the
function at this revision.
Viele Grüße
Jan
I'm not at all familiar with the magic words handling stuff; I have a
desire to be able to hide lower level headings absolutely (toclimit-3
for example) so I can use level 5 or 6 headings for a particular UI
purpose without them showing up in the TOC.
According to a response on
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template_talk:TOClimit#What_…
the effect is actually relative (i.e., a level 6 header directly
under a level 1 header counts as "2 deep" not 6) rather than absolute.
Wanting to see what's under the hood I downloaded 1.15.1 and started
wandering around trying to figure out the magic words parsing and am
immediately confused.
I know PHP acceptably well but this particular set of stuff is not
giving me a good place to start figuring out the TOC formatting. I
looked in ImagePage.php and at MediaWiki:Common.css and am not seeing
where to start particularly - just grepping for "TOC" in * and
following stuff down from there didn't help much so far.
Where do I need to start looking to understand how the TOC is actually produced?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
Hello!
I was looking at this code
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/intersection/Dyn…
and trying to figure out how to change this piece of code
----
if ('lastedit' == $sOrderMethod)
$sSqlWhere .= ' ORDER BY page_touched ';
else
$sSqlWhere .= ' ORDER BY c1.cl_timestamp ';
$sSqlWhere .= $sSqlOrder;
----
in such way that the extension could order the list alphabetically.
I imagine it would be a simple change, like this:
----
switch ($sOrderMethod)
{
case 'lastedit':
$sSqlWhere .= ' ORDER BY page_touched ';
break;
case 'alphabetical':
$sSqlWhere .= ' ORDER BY WHAT? ';
break;
case 'categoryadd':
default:
$sSqlWhere .= ' ORDER BY c1.cl_timestamp ';
break;
}
----
But I don't know what to use in the SQL instead of the "WHAT?".
Does anybody knows what should it be?
Thanks in advance!
Helder
See this talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:189.148.6.25
The poster purports to be a journalist experimenting with putting
toxic links on Wikipedia to see who will follow them.
Although his actions were IMO dickish, he has some point: is there any
reason to allow .exe links on WMF sites? Is there a clean method to
disable them? Is this a bad idea for any reason? What should default
settings be in MediaWiki itself? etc., etc.
- d.
2009/9/5 Dmitriy Sintsov <questpc(a)rambler.ru>:
> * Marco Schuster <marco(a)harddisk.is-a-geek.org> [Sat, 5 Sep 2009
>> If Windows had a decent command line / shell (has its suckyness
> improved
>> for
>> Win7?), I bet that TortoiseSVN had far less downloads... it simply is
>> the
>> only way to make SVN usable on Windows.
> Old Windows Shell will be replaced by this one:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell
> But I've read long time ago that usability of Windows Shells is limited
> not just because the syntax is weak, but, what's more important, process
> startup delay is much longer than in Linux, thus, calling of lots of
> external console programs to perform complex actions would be much
> slower at the same machine. My own scripts (eg mediawiki video sitemap
> generator seem to prove that)
Yes. Cygwin has the same problem: it can take *ages* for a process to
be forked from the command line. Running ./configure on software in
Cygwin is *way* slower than on Linux. Creating processes on Windows is
a heavyweight thing however you do it, it appears.
- d.
[subject changed]
2009/9/5 Marco Schuster <marco(a)harddisk.is-a-geek.org>:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wheee! TortoiseSVN indeed spoils us Windows users, as it's made
>> version control so easy that...well...a Windows user can do it ;-)
> If Windows had a decent command line / shell (has its suckyness improved for
> Win7?), I bet that TortoiseSVN had far less downloads... it simply is the
> only way to make SVN usable on Windows.
That or Cygwin. (git works well in Cygwin too. At my last workplace we
made damn sure to put Cygwin on our few Windows servers with sshd
running.) Cygwin made even command-line CVS usable.
- d.