Talk:Boxing (computer programming): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:51, 27 August 2009

Revision as of 12:52, 27 August 2009

Line 74:

I agree that ''currently'' the content of the article is inconsistent with the title. So, the simplest solution, I guess, is to rename it. But I'm afraid the name [[Boxing, unboxing and autoboxing]] may narrow the scope of the article too much. The article starts with saying that an object type is a datatype, and so it should be about a general concept, mentioning boxing of a primitive data type as one example, not as a primary subject. The lack of a precise definition is not a good reason for not to have an article. For example, an [[interpreted language]] doesn't give a precise definition, but tries to cover context and give a lot of examples. In short, "Object type" may be too vague to be a good title. But "[[boxing, ...]]" doesn't seem a good one, either. It suggests a very concrete approach to primitive data types that are not objects. Maybe someone can propose a better title. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

: The first sentence in thethis article has little to do with the rest of it. [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|<small>ping</small>]] 12:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)