Talk:Boxing (computer programming): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 1:
 
 
{{WikiProject Computing
Line 78 ⟶ 77:
::And that's the problem. All I'm saying is that, if possible, the article should be rewritten so that it isn't about one specific example. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
::: Look the first sentence is an unsourced definition. I'm undable to find a book that gives that def. How do you expect an article to be written based on that? We should salvage the rest of it, i.e. the notions of boxing, unboxing and autoboxing. "Not general enough" can mean a number of different things here, like being too Java-focused, but that's a different matter that can be addressed later. The title should describe the article's contents, not some ideal notion that ''you'' think we should have an article on, but for which there are no (obvious) sources. [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|<small>ping</small>]] 06:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
:The article doesn't need to have a concrete definition, unlike math articles, say. This is especially the case for computer science articles. Besides the one example I cited above, there are many more such examples. "The title should describe the article's contents". No, you got this all wrong. The article content must follow the title of the article; not the other way around. I also didn't propose the article materials to be deleted. That it is hard to definite isn't a good excuse for narrowing the scope of the article (that's basically the proposal your made) nor abandoning it at all. It's much harder to define, as a way of comparison, [[Object (computer science)]]. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 11:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)