Template talk:Contribs: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (A better way to implement "others") |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: I'll do it, but not tonight. It's not too hard, actually, if you let it be ''only'' the first argument that can be "Other". (The first argument tests for being equal to "Other"; if so, evaluate to "", otherwise evaluate as now. Then at the end add another test of the first argument; if equal to "Other", evaluate to "and other contributors", otherwise "".) Letting it be anywhere else makes it much more complicated to implement, because the "Other" can be anywhere. I'd get rid of the () because if it's just one, you can stick them instead of the "Other" argument. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 21:37, 9 March 2008 (CDT) | : I'll do it, but not tonight. It's not too hard, actually, if you let it be ''only'' the first argument that can be "Other". (The first argument tests for being equal to "Other"; if so, evaluate to "", otherwise evaluate as now. Then at the end add another test of the first argument; if equal to "Other", evaluate to "and other contributors", otherwise "".) Letting it be anywhere else makes it much more complicated to implement, because the "Other" can be anywhere. I'd get rid of the () because if it's just one, you can stick them instead of the "Other" argument. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 21:37, 9 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
: Actually, now that I think about it, probably a better way to go is to allow an "others=y" argument. That way, i) you can put it anywhere, and ii) adding "Others" doesn't count against the number of arguments supported by the template. Makes the template code slightly shorter too. Is that argument syntax OK? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 23:24, 9 March 2008 (CDT) | : Actually, now that I think about it, probably a better way to go is to allow an "others=y" argument. That way, i) you can put it anywhere, and ii) adding "Others" doesn't count against the number of arguments supported by the template. Makes the template code slightly shorter too. Is that argument syntax OK? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 23:24, 9 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
Sounds plausible--I'm too sleepy to be able to articulate my worry. If you can do it, great! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:27, 9 March 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 22:27, 9 March 2008
And others
I'd like to let us add and other contributor(s) by putting "Other" either at the front of the list or the end of the list of names. But actually engineering this is a pain--anybody like to give it a shot? --Larry Sanger 11:31, 29 February 2008 (CST)
- I'll do it, but not tonight. It's not too hard, actually, if you let it be only the first argument that can be "Other". (The first argument tests for being equal to "Other"; if so, evaluate to "", otherwise evaluate as now. Then at the end add another test of the first argument; if equal to "Other", evaluate to "and other contributors", otherwise "".) Letting it be anywhere else makes it much more complicated to implement, because the "Other" can be anywhere. I'd get rid of the () because if it's just one, you can stick them instead of the "Other" argument. J. Noel Chiappa 21:37, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
- Actually, now that I think about it, probably a better way to go is to allow an "others=y" argument. That way, i) you can put it anywhere, and ii) adding "Others" doesn't count against the number of arguments supported by the template. Makes the template code slightly shorter too. Is that argument syntax OK? J. Noel Chiappa 23:24, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
Sounds plausible--I'm too sleepy to be able to articulate my worry. If you can do it, great! --Larry Sanger 23:27, 9 March 2008 (CDT)