Personal tools

User talk:Dag

From HaskellWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Request reverting back to code tags)
 
(Spam)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
   
 
--[[User:Byorgey|Byorgey]] 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Byorgey|Byorgey]] 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Agreed, done. --[[User:Dag|Dag]] 01:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
::Thanks. I had wondered about using <hask> tags; now we know. =) I added a note to the [[Talk:Typeclassopedia|talk page]] recording the reasons for having things the way they are, for the benefit of future editors. --[[User:Byorgey|Byorgey]] 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Spam ==
  +
  +
I know you are trying to help, but moving stuff around actually makes it more difficult for me. --[[User:Gwern|Gwern]] 16:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Noted. --[[User:Dag|dag]] 18:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:15, 21 December 2011

Hi Dag,

Can we just revert all of the <hask> tags in the Typeclassopedia? I'm glad we did the experiment, but the formatting is messed up in a lot of places, and the syntax highlighting simply looks bad because it's inconsistent (see e.g. the highighting of Monad vs. Applicative, the highlighting of &&&, etc.).

--Byorgey 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, done. --Dag 01:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I had wondered about using <hask> tags; now we know. =) I added a note to the talk page recording the reasons for having things the way they are, for the benefit of future editors. --Byorgey 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

I know you are trying to help, but moving stuff around actually makes it more difficult for me. --Gwern 16:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted. --dag 18:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)