317
edits
User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 495: | Line 495: | ||
:::It's not Kaphotics' permission I'm unsure of. It's staff's. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | :::It's not Kaphotics' permission I'm unsure of. It's staff's. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::That's just what Zesty gave you; the permission she's talking about is Kaphotics'. But no matter, I'm fine with doing it. <small>[[User:Glik|glik]]</small><sup>[[User talk:Glik|glak]]</sup> 00:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ::::That's just what Zesty gave you; the permission she's talking about is Kaphotics'. But no matter, I'm fine with doing it. <small>[[User:Glik|glik]]</small><sup>[[User talk:Glik|glak]]</sup> 00:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
== Personality Value / Gender == | |||
First off, the summary is much better now; thank you. However, I still question having a textual summary of an algorithm, without giving pseudocode; why not have both? Anyone who legitimately follow the pseudocode can still refer to the improved summary. Plus, pseudocode is unambiguous - sure, I don't see any confusing part of the newly revised summary, but I'm a native English speaker, and it may come off confusing to someone less familiar with English. Pseudocode crosses language boundaries. | |||
I just don't see a reason to ''not'' have both. It can only (possibly) increase the number of people who could potentially understand it. | |||