Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 190.21.189.24 - "" |
Tag: |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=Low}}
}}
== Where does criticism come from? ==
There is no citation or reference of any kind with the criticisms. They may be valid but seem to be the opinion of the author. --[[Special:Contributions/4.14.21.30|4.14.21.30]] ([[User talk:4.14.21.30|talk]]) 14:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
...I have to admit I may have missed the point, but is this "pattern" just a way to do Boolean logic with a few pages of new classes and code? Cause, yeah--I've been stringing together Boolean values with logical operators for a long time. [[Special:Contributions/158.111.236.74|158.111.236.74]] ([[User talk:158.111.236.74|talk]]) 16:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
== Class explosion + bad explanation ==
Line 7 ⟶ 14:
:--[[User:Wavell2003|Wavell2003]] ([[User talk:Wavell2003|talk]]) 15:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
:: Of course I would use this pattern in a functional language. It's just not as apparent, because you can do it in a few lines of code instead of a mess like the one we have right now. ("simplified"... yeah...) But I am torn up if replacing the code with a shorter, clearer, functional variant would be a good idea, as fewer people understand Lisp or Haskell. --[[Special:Contributions/47.70.172.238|47.70.172.238]] ([[User talk:47.70.172.238|talk]]) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The distinction between this and [[Interpreter pattern]] is unclear to me. Perhaps this is a special case of Interpreter?
Line 15 ⟶ 24:
:--[[User:Wavell2003|Wavell2003]] ([[User talk:Wavell2003|talk]]) 15:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
:-- Second that [[User:Dubwai|Dubwai]] The Specification as explained here is special case of Interpreter. To quote the first article from the list "This effectively creates an interpreter [Gang of Four] for the specification. The "language" being interpreted allows us to describe a composite specification." and connection with Interpreter should be made clear. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.21.127.98|190.21.127.98]] ([[User talk:190.21.127.98|talk]]) 18:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== UML diagram ==
Line 27 ⟶ 38:
Shouldn't the lower right-hand class be labelled ''NotSpecification''? --[[Special:Contributions/132.181.52.8|132.181.52.8]] ([[User talk:132.181.52.8|talk]]) 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:Second that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.21.189.24|190.21.189.24]] ([[User talk:190.21.189.24|talk]]) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Content Doesn't make sense ==
The text is confusing at one point, and talks about a previously implemented class, which is not linked or shown anywhere. It looks like this may be copied from some other source, and as such may be plagerized.
"We previously defined an OverdueSpecification class" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.146.43.241|75.146.43.241]] ([[User talk:75.146.43.241|talk]]) 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Specification pattern]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=706406351 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110724151447/http://www.dpdk.nl/opensource/specification-pattern-for-selection-on-lists to http://www.dpdk.nl/opensource/specification-pattern-for-selection-on-lists
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 03:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
== Comparison with false ==
I'm no C# guru but wouldn't one prefer to write
... && !currentInvoice.NoticeSent && ...
instead of
... && currentInvoice.NoticeSent == false && ...
? [[User:Uligerhardt|Uligerhardt]] ([[User talk:Uligerhardt|talk]]) 08:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
| |||