Content deleted Content added
Line 244:
:Although I understand there is confusion that needs rectified, I disagree that this article's topic is too narrow in definition. [[Generator (computer science)]] generally agrees with most of the computer science literature in it's use of that term, as an iterator-like function. I've not seen any comp sci literature which defines what a ''generator'' (unqualified) is otherwise, except for the apparent convention of using the word in specific instances such as ''random number generator'', ''code generator'', ''name generator'', ''character generator'', etc. that are just a consequence of the common English meaning of the word, rather than a non-English teachnical meaning specific to the comp sci community. Many of those specific uses are listed on [[Generator (disambiguation)]] (although the disambig page seems to have been renamed to just [[Generator]] now). Would it suffice to just make a more verbose disambiguation statement at the top of the article, maybe something like:
:: ''This article is about a type of function in computer science that behaves like an iterator. For other uses of the term in computing in general see [[Generator]].''
::You say that the articles "generally agrees with most of the computer science literature in it's use of that term". Could you give references of actual CS publications going in this direction? The article in itself is in contradiction with this claim, as it takes PRNG as an example, whereas PRNG typically don't behave like iterators, but are simply non referentially transparent functions of no argument.
:Would that work? We could of course try to invent a broader-scoped definition, but I'm hesitant to do so. -- [[User:Dmeranda|Dmeranda]] 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||