Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 108:
::'''All''' wikipedia programming articles follow the convention of black-in-<code><code></code> for keywords etc discussed in the text. That this article should not will ruffle feathers and is, above all, unnessesary and superfluous. When I look at a painting I want to see the colours. When I read a critical review of it I do not want it written in matching colours. Also, think about the wether to use bold and italics in the text, the current libera use, while mirroring the constructs in the code examples, are again if not confusing then at elast contributing to the garishness. <code>Just plain, unadorned code will do in the text regardless of example formatting</code>. [[User:Mikademus|Mikademus]] 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::Adding another note when on the topic, every so often there are links inside code-tags, like <code>#include <[[iostream]]></code>. Considering that, I assume you see the unreasonableness of colouring the text itself. [[User:Mikademus|Mikademus]] 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:Two things, first the statement "Let me again ask you not to redefine Eiffel. The font conventions are part of the language rules." by Dr. Meyer is incorrect. Quoting the ECMA standard : "The color-related parts of these conventions do not affect the language definition, which remains unambiguous under black-and-white printing (thanks to the letter-case and font parts of the conventions). Color printing is recommended for readability." So color printing is NOT part of the standard for any other reason besides formatting of text. If this is to be considered part of the standard then we also have to use BNF to describe everything because that is defined in the standard. Second, while Eiffel is defined as a specification language too a quick look at the title of this article shows the text "Eiffel programming language". - [[User:DNewhall|DNewhall]] 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
| |||