User talk:Tea2min

Underscore
Apologies about the overlinking in this edit -- I accidentally reverted to one version too early, undoing your (good) edit from July that removed the unnecessary links. Sorry about that, and thanks for putting everything in order. --JBL (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Computer programming
You made a removal edit, would you please comment on the talk page to support your removal? -Inowen (nlfte) 09:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Computer programming. Tea2min (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

White space in interval order
Thanks for deleting it. It was a minor clean-up, but a good one.

Though I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly a dozen years now, this was the first time I'd ever added an image to an article, and I guess I was so focused on getting that part right that I failed to notice the white space I'd created.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The way the wiki software transforms the markup into web pages is somewhat, um, baroque, and the way it handles whitespace is really confusing (e.g. in bulleted lists, where double-spacing the entries breaks the list into multiple lists, see MOS:BULLETLIST).
 * Thank you for adding that image in the first place. – Tea2min (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain your revision on Entry point?
Hey, about the "angry fruit salad"... part... I suppose that means my image is too messy?

Sorry about that. I was worried that might be the case.

I noticed you removed the part about "See Programming languages." I guess that wasn't neccessary but for now what should I do to provide a non-overwhelming example of the article's subject?

I want to highlight what is responsible for what so people who don't understand any .NET languages can get an idea, since I haven't seen much of a deep review of those things when looking at the example under Programming languages.(if you know what i mean. Or not. I dont know)

Replies would be helpful. Thanks-- 🐺Roo Written🐺  TALK  19:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Program-entry-point-demonstration-CSharp.png removed that "See Programming Languages" mostly because it's a submarine link in the sense of MOS:SUBMARINE: it's a piped link where the link target is not obvious from the link text. (As a reader I would have believed this link to lead to Programming language.)
 * Re: "angry fruit salad", see wiktionary:angry fruit salad. I think the image you added is quite unclear, and the descriptions used in the image are a bit hard to read, at least with the image size used in the article.
 * The article Entry point is not specific to .NET, and I think too much emphasis on .NET languages in the lead section of that article may actually be misleading to the reader.
 * Another point I am not happy with is the sentence "A common form of the main function in C, C# or C++, is a static method, either returning no data or a number, also known as the return code." Three points:
 * In C there are no methods or member functions, just plain functions.
 * In C++ the main function cannot be a static member function.
 * The return type of the main function in C and C++ must be, it cannot be  . (Strictly speaking in C++ the main function is not really a function, e.g. it must not be called from the program itself and its address must not be taken. See the explanation of the main function at cppreference.com and at, well, Entry point.)
 * However, I like that you mentioned the exit status/return value of the main function in the lead section of Entry point.
 * – Tea2min (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

PROD AccessApps
I noticed you've done some work on AccessApps. I'm just letting you know that I've proposed that this article be deleted.CircleGirl (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Greatest and least elements definition
Hi!

You are right. I read about greatest and least elements and posets. I was thinking that "equals" is sort of binary relation like "two elements with the same value" or something. Actually here "equals" means "the same element". And in posets there are incomparable elements instead, that is not a ≤ b and not b ≤ a. And difference between greatest and maximal elements is that all elements are ≤ greatest element, but ≤ or incomparable with maximal element(s). 176.59.144.14 (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.
Hello ,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.
 * RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Toki Pona
I agree that Category:Constructed languages introduced in the 2000s is not very useful. Editor2020 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your revert in Polish notation‎
Re your edit Special:Diff/930128112 in Polish notation, reverting the edit by Special:Contributions/95.74.102.13, how about reverting also this edit Special:Diff/930112057 in Reverse Polish notation by the same IP editor...? --CiaPan (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you for that reminder.
 * I just noticed that Subject–object–verb contains a link to Reverse Polish notation, and Verb–subject–object contains a link to Polish notation. What do you think, should these links be removed? – Tea2min (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so. The more because mathematical operands are hardly identifiable as 'object' and 'subject' – when calculating $5 – 2$ we usually say "subtract 2 from 5", but we can say "decrease 5 by 2" as well. For "add 3 to 7" I honestly can't say whether it should be $3 + 7$ or $7 + 3$. Hence I'd support removing those links. --CiaPan (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have now removed those links. – Tea2min (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) CiaPan (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Domain (mathematics)
I agree very much with your edit summary here. Maybe once I finish dealing with Range (mathematics) (41 links in article space to go after the annoying RM discussion) I will go on to deal with it and it can be retargeted. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I've started; only 117 more to go. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help -- I've gone ahead and changed the target of Domain (mathematics) to point to the redirect page. --JBL (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! – Tea2min (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

FRACTRAN
dear sir i added a usewful external link a fractran interpreter in c very near to machine level. i did not understand why it is removed/ wolfram a commercial companys link is kept why not a useful interpteter .u can mail me at anilped@hotmail.com.

i want to understand i am not a good at word processors but professor of mathematics and computer science.

wish u healthy life thanks


 * , first of all, sorry for the late reply.
 * I removed the link https://sites.google.com/site/anilpedgaonkarscompprograms/cruel-covid-19 because it seemed to be original research in the sense of WP:OR. And frankly, the code seemed to be of low quality. –Tea2min (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

BIPS article deletion discussion
Hi, I saw you commented on Articles for deletion/Bitcoin-Qt as Tobias Bergemann. Would you like to also comment on Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Core? It is basically the same. Also, there is Articles for deletion/Bitcoin XT and Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will have a look. – Tea2min (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I want to let you know that I appreciate it a lot, whatever you may say. We are making the best encyclopedia of all time, together. Our diverse opinions make up a significant part of human culture. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Discordant note
There are no Beethoven entries in Symphony (disambiguation), just as there should be no Mozart entries in Kyrie (disambiguation). Here's a test for determining whether an entry is a partial match or not. If you refer to "Mozart's Kyrie", is it unambiguous? No, because you have to further disambiguate it. That's why I deleted what I did and kept the sole Vivaldi work. (I'm not a big classical expert, so if he composed more than one, then that should go too.) Clarityfiend (talk)


 * I see, thank you for that explanation. You are right, "Kyrie" could be viewed as similar to "Symphony" as they both can refer to works in musical genres also referred to as "Kyrie" and "Symphony", and it wouldn't make sense to list every work called symphony at Symphony (disambiguation). However, as a reader I use disambiguation pages as tools to navigate Wikipedia, and I think it is confusing to find the Wikipedia article on Vivaldi's setting of the Kyrie listed at Kyrie (disambiguation) and not the Wikipedia articles of other composers' Kyries. Unfortunately, Kyrie is not much help here.
 * I agree that the phrase "Mozart's Kyrie" is ambiguous, however I don't see Kyrie in F major, K. 33 and Kyrie in D minor, K. 341 as partial matches, rather it is exactly their numbers in the Köchel catalogue that further disambiguate them. But perhaps it would be best to just remove Kyrie (Vivaldi) and Kyrie in F major, K. 33 and Kyrie in D minor, K. 341 from Kyrie (disambiguation) and list these articles at Kyrie instead? – Tea2min (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:DAB, "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title". The Vivaldi entry bothered me too. Upon further perusal, I only see it referenced as "Kyrie, RV 587" or "Kyrie in G Minor, RV 587", so I agree: all three should be transferred to Kyrie someplace, maybe in a new "Examples" or "Notable kyries" subsection under "Musical settings". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

UTF-8
I see you reverted an edit I made to UTF-8. I noticed that the table as I changed it had a minor error, that for technical reasons the first byte of a UTF-8 sequence cannot be $C0 nor $C1. (Actually, according to the rules those bytes should not appear in a UTF-8 character sequence at all.) I have corrected the table format and included a footnote explaining this. Thank you for your attention, I might not have noticed the error otherwise. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

virtual function call on construct c++ fatal runtime
word it of your liking. This been an issue for 35+ c++ years and hasn't been addressed yet. please add example as displayed.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.193.41 (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I will try my hand at it. Please nag me in a few days if I haven't added this to virtual function by then. And for what it's worth, this issue has been addressed in the sense that the C++ standards have always described the effect of making a call to a pure virtual function directly or indirectly from a constructor or destructor for the object being created or destroyed as undefined, in the sense of undefined behaviour. It's one of the many, many ways to shoot yourself in the foot with C++. – Tea2min (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a msg. My point was that writing a very simple 20 lines of code compiler nor linker issues any warning (default warning setup), and leaves a program to crash at runtime. I would assume if optimizer can unroll loops could traverse through three class relationship, especially no pointers used. cl/linker used: Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.28.29334 for x64, Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 14.28.29334.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.193.41 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * C++ is riddled with undefined behaviour. One of the implications of the use of the term "undefined" in the C++ standards is that a conforming implementation is not required to detect undefined behaviour. The kind of static program analysis/devirtualization required to detect the pure virtual function call your code example showed at compile time is expensive in terms of compilation time, and I would not expect C++ compiler writers to spend much energy on this problem. C++ compiler writers generally are expected to spend more energy on code optimization than on error detection. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.
 * As I tried to explain in my edit comment when I removed the section you added to the article Virtual function, I did that mostly because I found it hard to read and unclear, and too specific for Microsoft Visual C++. I won't revert if you decide to add it back to the article as it was. However, it would need to be revised significantly, in my humble opinion. – Tea2min (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. Well I got to think what todo with this, years I thought performance-wise not many languages come close to c/c++. I realize since old days language still has compile-as-written philosophy, its not a sandbox, but dang this object inheritance since concept is nothing than linking few code pages/classes together, there no loops, no runtime construction or pointers, all is written static just to be run. Virtual function issue should have been solved, not for developer to think about. I tried to refactor some old code, instead of calling virtual I put extra middle layer class and call a wrapper instead, it compiled all nice, just to see it collapse on a launch. Thought this language drives the coding, very deterministic in comparison to others, compiler does low level/optimization/symbolic reduction etc, but I don't know what they spend time on syntax rule lists and junk, could fix this first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.193.41 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Two-way communiation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Two-way communiation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hanan


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Hanan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Egeymi (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Locally path-connected space" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Locally_path-connected_space&redirect=no Locally path-connected space] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Reducible manifold" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reducible_manifold&redirect=no Reducible manifold] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"Irreducible manifold" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreducible_manifold&redirect=no Irreducible manifold] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)