User talk:Demonkoryu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to rant. --Demonkoryu (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

40k Fantastillions[edit]

Apologies on the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)‎ article - I missed the centillions etc; even worse that they're a pet hate of mine. *>.<* Thanks for catching them! Vaporum (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

C++ indentation style[edit]

Hi! I saw that you've been changing indentation style of C++ code snippets in several articles lately. Most of that code describes techniques that are inherent to the C++ language, not some specific library, so it should be formatted according to the formatting used in the C++ Standard (see n3126.pdf). Thanks! 1exec1 (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've made these changes for several reasons. First, as I already noted in my recent edits, it conserves vertical space, which I value much, especially in the case of material that's possibly printed out (such as this enceclopedia). Second, I've found this the dominating style in Wikipedia and modern code, not only in C++, but also in other C-syntax inspired languages like Java, PHP and JavaScript. Although the C++ standard you've linked to uses my syntax mostly, for a random example; look at page 247. What do you think? I'm open to discuss this matter (a WP policy regarding coding standards would make sense IMO; consistency is important). --Demonkoryu (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm with 1exec1 on this, you seem to be entering edit wars on coding style issues. You mention a WP coding standards, are you aware of such a location? If not perhaps we should create one so as to avoid edit wars. You may want to participate at C++ Coding Conventions. Motti (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Far from it. I'm trying to improve WP by using a consistent coding style that is especially suited for enceclopedic material; and I'm of the opinion that my edits had merit. I searched for a WP coding standard; but didn't find one. Thanks for linking the Coding Conventions article. I will look into it. --Demonkoryu (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I've posted a link to a working paper, which apparently uses different syntax than the official C++ Standard (C++03)). In addition to that, one important resource is the personal page of Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++. As you can see, he uses K&R style for everything (classes are equivalent to struct so have the opening brace at the same line). The reasoning for using this style is perhaps that the consistency between C and C++ is preserved, which is important as these two languages are quite intertwined. The other languages you mention have very little in common with C++ except the syntax similarities, so I don't think they should matter here. In any way, perhaps we should discuss the topic at C++ Coding Conventions so more people would get involved in the discussion.1exec1 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
They have not only syntax similarities (which by itself quite supports my argument, as we're arguing syntax here), but are influenced by C++ (as can be seen under the "influences" section of their respective WP articles). I agree, lets continue this argument on the C++ Coding Conventions page. --Demonkoryu (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
After agreeing to take the discussion to the C++ Coding Conventions page you are still changing it in articles. Please accept that you are in a minority on this and stop the edit war (or get other people to argue your point). Motti (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I've raised an RFC. --Demonkoryu (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Open64 and Pathscale[edit]

In regards to open64 and pathscale, I think it may be someone from the company that comes around and attempts to clobber the information relating pathscale to open64. It happened last month and this month. It is strange to say the least.  snaphat  00:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Confluence (software) edit[edit]


Regarding this edit: WP:LINK#General points on linking style discourages the use of run-on links as it's difficult for editors to know in advance that what looks like one link is actually two. That's why I originally altered the sentence to separate the links. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems impossible to rephrase the sentence without it sounding awkward. I favor readability over enforcing WP:Link policy. Case in point, the mediawiki article itself uses run-on links (in fact, as many as 4 of them in their introductory sentence). Greetings, --Demonkoryu (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
MediaWiki isn't exactly a great article to compare something to. Nevertheless, I still think more could be done to sort this out. In fact, it may simply be best merging enterprise wiki (a rather poor little essay referenced only to primary sources) back into wiki software. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the same. Please go ahead and propose he merger. --Demonkoryu (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Good day.

I'm not sure why you undid me on EVE Online's article. An anon IP changed all of the gender-neutral pronouns in the article to "He", and I reverted those changes. This is not vandalism (But in fact mild-vandalism cleanup), but I'd love to hear your thoughts. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender neutrality isn't the same as using gender-neutral pronouns. Using contrived language like this hardly benefits gender equality. --Demonkoryu (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)