Yes Resolved (since 10:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't think that a shorter variable name is actually any faster to process.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. First it has to find the variable to report it's value, and if it's a longer name, it's more parsing to do to check if it's the right variable. At least from my knowledge.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 10:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename the variables in the example?

 Unresolved (see all...)

I think that we should rename the variables in the example to more descriptive ones (for example, "si" for "string index").
Tymewalk (talk | contribs) 18:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think no. In fact, you could change the name all you want and it would still be the same. They can choose to change it
Tommy0924 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Tommy0924
Yes, it would be the same, but it makes it harder to follow. This is a tutorial, and having variables like "i", "i2", "i3", etc... doesn't exactly show what they're supposed to be doing or why they go where they are.
Tymewalk (talk | contribs) 19:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't do cloud lists

 Unresolved (see all...)

Instead of doing cloud lists, shouldn't we just focus on the encoding/decoding?
HiPeeps124816 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's still necessary to relate the usage of encoding or decoding with cloud lists though - completely removing any mention of cloud lists isn't a wise idea as there still needs to be a "directory" for people to refer to.
MasterofTheBrick (talk | contribs) 06:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

Yes Resolved (since 17:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC))

Could an Administrator roll this page back to this version? The person who decided to 3.0-ify it didn't understand why it was undone in the first place. I would do it myself, but MediaWiki won't allow me to.
Dhuls's Wiki Icon.png Dhuls (Talk|528 Contributions|Scratch) 17:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rollback isn't meant for situations like this--it's really only supposed to be used for reverting a lot of edits by a certain user quickly or (in some cases) very clear rule violations.
If you just think that several edits by a certain user on a certain page need to be undone, you can do that yourself:
  1. Go into the page history.
  2. Click the timestamp of the latest revision that you want to keep.
  3. Click "edit source" on the old revision.
  4. Add a summary along the lines of "reverting to x revision because y."
  5. Click "save changes."
  6. Reversion complete.
Hope this helps. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I managed to revert the page, and also leave a comment so users don't attempt to 3.0-ify it again.
Dhuls's Wiki Icon.png Dhuls (Talk|528 Contributions|Scratch) 17:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. I have feelings, I am not a bot.
  2. "The person who decided to 3.0-ify it didn't understand why it was undone in the first place." is an example of rudeness
  3. Add why it was undone.

PenguinLover1123 (talk | contribs) 17:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.