Talk:Debounce: Difference between revisions
From Legacy Roblox Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
>Camoy No edit summary |
>NXTBoy No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:My main objection to that version was that a lot of the information was wrong or misleading. [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Debounce&diff=44720&oldid=39496 You can see the differences here]. Not quite sure what you mean by "code/verbage"...{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=15:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)}} | :My main objection to that version was that a lot of the information was wrong or misleading. [http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Debounce&diff=44720&oldid=39496 You can see the differences here]. Not quite sure what you mean by "code/verbage"...{{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=15:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)}} | ||
::Well some of the writing was inaccurate, and the code examples weren't the best they could be, however I think this page could have some major format changes (e.g. going back to the Example template, instead of pre). <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top; color: grey">[[Camoy]] • [[Special:Contributions/Camoy|Contribs]] (July 30 2011)</span> | ::Well some of the writing was inaccurate, and the code examples weren't the best they could be, however I think this page could have some major format changes (e.g. going back to the Example template, instead of pre). <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top; color: grey">[[Camoy]] • [[Special:Contributions/Camoy|Contribs]] (July 30 2011)</span> | ||
:::The example template looks aweful when used only to encapsulate for a single line of code. They need some explanation within them as well. The way I see it, it should only be used for supplementary content, which gives an example of how to use something described within the text, but isn't essential to understanding the document. {{User:NXTBoy/sig|date=14:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 14:46, 30 July 2011
I think this format (http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=Debounce&oldid=39495) was nicer. Take out the inline comments, clean up that code/verbage, and I think I would like it better than the current revision. What are your thoughts? Camoy • Contribs (July 29 2011)
- My main objection to that version was that a lot of the information was wrong or misleading. You can see the differences here. Not quite sure what you mean by "code/verbage"...
- Well some of the writing was inaccurate, and the code examples weren't the best they could be, however I think this page could have some major format changes (e.g. going back to the Example template, instead of pre). Camoy • Contribs (July 30 2011)
- The example template looks aweful when used only to encapsulate for a single line of code. They need some explanation within them as well. The way I see it, it should only be used for supplementary content, which gives an example of how to use something described within the text, but isn't essential to understanding the document.
- Well some of the writing was inaccurate, and the code examples weren't the best they could be, however I think this page could have some major format changes (e.g. going back to the Example template, instead of pre). Camoy • Contribs (July 30 2011)
