User talk:Phil Last

APL
My apologies for reverting your edit initially. I was just going rapid-fire down my watchlist and reflexively reverted your change, since it appeared nonconstructive, without looking at the talkpage. In the future, you might want to put "per talkpage" or similar in the edit summary when making a change that could otherwise be mistaken as nonconstructive. Regarding "extensible", it just didn't make sense in context (how can there be only 1 simple rule, and yet it's extensible?"). I agree that the "Quotes" section should probably be deleted. Regards, Cybercobra (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've now integrated the sentences better. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Current compromise is good, IMO. Yes, such discussions are appropriate for the article's talkpage. Though when there are few editors involved in a dispute, using user talkpages is also appropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Response
''I'd dearly like to remove the sections on terminology, the character set, the keyboard layout and just refer to the APL syntax & symbols. If I state my intention to do it on the talk page and no-one argues, is that it? I can go ahead?''
 * In fact you can do it without any discussion (WP:BOLD) (although an explanatory edit summary is recommended), but it might be reverted (WP:BRD), thus necessitating discussion anyway. For example, personally, I would oppose you in deleting the keyboard layout & charset text outright, but would instead perhaps favor refactoring the material to the syntax subsection or sub-article so as to WP:PRESERVE the information.

''Also several sections that are two or three paragraphs could easily be replaced with a single sentence and a ref elsewhere. Is that ok? The article should not be 20 screens long!''
 * Same applies as in the previous point, only I personally likely wouldn't oppose you on this. As to appropriate article length, see WP:SIZE; I don't have any strong opinion one way or another at the moment on the article's present size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=APL_(programming_language)&diff=next&oldid=308281798

''The book mentioned is the first items in the References section "A Programming Language" How to connect them? I don't know but it's there.''


 * The banner was meant to refer to the majority of the text of the entire section until the start of the APL2 subheading, not just the first sentence; if it were just the first sentence, I would have used instead. Indeed, I don't dispute at all that initial 2-sentence paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=APL_(programming_language)&diff=next&oldid=308286689

''You must be joking. It's 45 years since APL\360. Dyalog alone have ported to dozens of different machines. Back in the 90s it was the first thing they did as soon as they heard someone had brought out a new machine. APLX is principally for MAC. Dyalog on Windows and all flavours of UNIX/LINUX and is a naative .NET language as is Visual APL. There have been several APL only machines!''

What more do you want?


 * I don't dispute the accuracy of the vast majority of the article's statements, it's just that such facts should (ideally) (and, for many, could be easily) cited if the article is to become high-quality. Believe me, I've watched some "good article" nominations and articles don't pass muster unless most things (especially things "obvious" to one versed in the topic) are cited. As to the exact edit in question, I was requesting a citation for the fact that APL has a variety of implementations, which I think we can both agree can be proven easily; it's just I personally don't have enough interest in/passion for APL to do the legwork of finding a source to cite myself. A link to a page listing APL implementations or links to the sites of a few APL vendors is all I was looking for.

Cheers. --Cyber cobra (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re
Regarding the referencing near punctuation, see WP:PAIC. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)