Content deleted Content added
→Article still lacking: new section |
|||
Line 97:
::Hi [[User:Cedar101|Cedar101]], I see you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oz_%28programming_language%29&type=revision&diff=672540114&oldid=672034275 switched] the lang to erlang for 11 of the source blocks, but not the remaining 5. Using erlang is definitely the right choice when the source needs a code comment, as erlang also uses % as the comment character. But I am wondering why not change the other five also to lang=erlang. It looks like the highlighting of 'then' and 'else' is lost using erlang, but sml doesnt highlight elseif. If erlang is 'close enough', we could propose a patch to the syntax highlighter so that 'oz' is recognised as a language, and rendered using the 'erlang' lexer. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 00:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
::: Okay, I changed all to "elrang". -- [[User:Cedar101|Cedar101]] ([[User talk:Cedar101|talk]]) 03:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
== Article still lacking ==
Fifteen years on, it still assumes that the reader knows the language. What is "browse"? What is special about the examples which demonstrate that it's "allowing higher order functional programming"? It's reasonable to assume that the reader understands concepts like "first class values" (which generally have Wp pages) but not that he's already familiar with the syntax and semantics of the language being described... why would he be reading the article if he were? [[User:MarkMLl|MarkMLl]] ([[User talk:MarkMLl|talk]]) 20:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
| |||