Talk:MVC

MVC
opcode for "move characters" in IBM Assembler. Got a feeling we've deleted this kind of thing before. For those not technically inclined, this is akin to a keyword in a programming language, and probably isn't used in running text. Forgetting all higher-level languages and considering only assembler, there are all kinds of varieties. For example, here's a nice table of all the opcode mnemonics (abbreviations) for a Z80 processor:. Equinox ◑ 00:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The same sequence of characters can have quite different meanings in different assembly languages, depending on the architecture of the processor- and there are lots of different processors. Plus, there are only so many short sequences of letters that evoke words and phrases, so one assembly language may use the same three letters for a completely different concept from another's. We don't want to get into the business of providing a keyword glossary for every assembly language that ever existed, and I don't look forward to verifying usage of assembler keywords for a processor that was only sold for 3 years 15 years ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems like an RFV question to me. If it is not used in running text, delete. bd2412 T 04:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In case it goes to RfV - I have added three citations that use the term in running text. (so Keep) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * delete because this is not a word in a language (where "language" refers to natural languages only and not to programming languages) -- Liliana • 18:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The three citations added are definitely English language sentences, not programming language statements. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still not a word because it doesn't convey any meaning. It's actually akin to a symbol, like ☫. That symbol doesn't convey any meaning, it's just that, a symbol, and that's why these don't have entries here (or at least, shouldn't, seeing as that link appears to be blue). The same applies to MVC, it doesn't have any specific meaning, it just symbolizes an operator. -- Liliana • 19:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is this here? It's an rfv matter, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really for RFV. Semper posted what looks like attesting quotations at Citations:MVC, including "... with a single MVC instruction". What to make of these quotations as for wordhood seems to depend rather on editor judgment, and thus suits well for RFD, I think. I found "A &lt;td> tag is placed at the beginning of an individual table cell"; does it support &lt;td> entry? Or does "... is extended again by the introduction of the elif keyword" support elif as a keyword of multiple programming/scripting languages? We had a discussion on this but I am too tired to search for it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A discussion: Beer_parlour/2010/October, full of Daniel Carrero ("Daniel.") and myself. The following items were RFV-failed in 2011: colspan, bgcolor, cellpadding and cellspacing. Other discussions: Beer parlour archive/April 06, Beer parlour archive/2008/January. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not that it doesn't have meaning, but it's just too jargony and computer-language specific.  is more entry-worthy, and it probably shouldn't have one either. Perhaps some computer language keywords may have made it into mainstream usage, like   or , but I don't think this opcode fits the bill.  Pengo (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)