User talk:Trifon Triantafillidis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] C# templates

Hi, Trifon. I noticed you said, "C# does not support templates" when you reverted the C Sharp edit that said, "C# version 2 has templates". Since C# 2.0 does, in fact have generics, which are functionally the same as C++ templates, I'm confused about why you seem to disagree. Is it because you are considering just the C# 1.0 features? The Rod 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rod. Generics are not the same as templates (that's why the language makers did not call them templates). Generics provide a functionality that resembles templates but are not true templates. Their main difference is that templates are instantiated at compile-time whereas generics exist at run-time. Although this seems as minor detail it makes a huge differece regarding performance. I think we should keep using both terms by calling generics as generics and templates as templates.

You may find this article interesting : Comparing .NET Generics and C++ Templates

Thanks for explaining that, Trifon. Since the section of the article compares C# with C++, it seems more clear if it said something like, "C# lacks (compile-time) templates but has (runtime) generics in version 2.0." Do you have a preferred wording for that? If not, I'll proceed with the clarification. The Rod 20:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think something like "C# lacks templates but has generics in version 2.0." will do.
Although the "compile-time" and "run-time" difference is important, we should not consider it as the only difference between templates and generics. Trifon Triantafillidis 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. The Rod 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hi 2U2

Hello Trifon. I se you have been offering your opinions and support/oppose votes at the ArbCom elections. You may not be aware, but there are some minimum standards that have been put into place there, regarding reletively new accounts, and accounts that have not met a minimum standard of number of edits. A quick search of your contributions indicates that you registered your account on dec.13, 2005, and that you have 40 odd edits at the present time. This does not meet the minimum standard that has been established. While I appreciate that you want to get involved in the process of selecting WP's next ArbCom, I am afraid your opinions may be discounted, as they do not meet the standards for voter partcipation which has been established. In order to vote, you must have an account registered on or before 30 September 2005 and 150 edits by the start of the election (January 9). I hope this advice saves you some time and spares you some effort. Again thank you for your participation and interest in the process, and I hope that you remain active in the wikipedia community, regardless of the standards that have been set up for this particular election. Happy editting! Hamster Sandwich 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the minimum standards. Statistically, N-1 will be a big enough number of voters to do the job. Thank you for telling me :-) Trifon Triantafillidis 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goedel's page

Thanks for writing about the do/would do problem I entered on Goedel's page. It was still bothering me with the 'do', i think because the split would/do just confused me the first time I read it. I changed it to the following to avoid the split altogether, hope it's better: He was a somewhat sickly man and was prescribed specific diets and medical regimens by doctors, but Gödel often ignored his doctors' advice or even would do the opposite of what his prescription indicated. Jeffhoy

[edit] Image:NUMBER_SIGN.jpg listed for deletion

Replaced by SVG version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Number_sign.svg MeekMark 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AT_SIGN.jpg listed for deletion

Replaced by SVG version at Image:Number_sign.svg MeekMark 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Dora Bakogianni.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dora Bakogianni.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Spade (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)