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?

Yes Resolved (since an unknown date)

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)
Renaming all variables to their lengthened form would be contradictory since it’s already been stated in the article that shorter names reduce execution time. I’ve added a few comments explaining their usage in the first section to provide some clarity for the newer readers but further elaboration can be added in the article’s subsequent scripts.
MasterofTheBrick (talk | contribs) 04:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't do cloud lists

Yes Resolved (since an unknown date)

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 so there isn’t any reason to remove the mention thereof. The article gives only a brief elaboration on these topics which is where the relevant wikilinks come into play.
Last edited on 04:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
MasterofTheBrick (talk | contribs) 06:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


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|918 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|918 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)

Make new category on case sensitive encoding and decoding?

 Unresolved (see all...)

Should there be a new category for case sensitive encoding and decoding (using costumes)? The current method uses lists and variables so it is not case sensitive, so encoding "Hi" would give the same result as"hi", but using costumes will make it so "hi"and "Hi" would have different outputs.
ExtraMental (talk | contribs) 03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be good to at least link the Case Sensing article under a separate sub-heading, but I’m on the fence here as to whether editors should re-create an entire script for the sole purpose of adding in the case-detection conditionals, which would basically be a blatant mash-up of existing scripts in the two articles.
Keeping in mind that there are a few articles on cloud variables being proposed for a merger in S:CPND, it would be best to coincide the addition of this information together with the merge (should it get approved) - as of now I’m wary that adding a relatively large chunk of information at the present may result in it getting trimmed in the future, plus it could complicate housekeeping and re-organisation if the merge goes through.
MasterofTheBrick (talk | contribs) 06:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.