Talk:Unsupported titles/`num`

RFD discussion: June–July 2017
Following this RFD on .. non-human senses from computing : here are some more. 1. The anchor in a Web page; 2. The length operator in Lua. Equinox ◑ 18:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think having information on elements of programming languages is useful. I added one of the definitions that you are proposing be deleted (the Lua one). However, the current CFI doesn't mention programming languages at all, so I suppose they are not currently allowed. Perhaps this sort of thing should be moved to an appendix, at least for now: Appendix:Lua, Appendix:JavaScript. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not part of human language. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * keep SemperBlotto (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all definitions which are specific to programming languages, this is not something we ought to, or are equipped to, cover. - [The] DaveRoss  12:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, we should not try to provide documentation on programming languages. DTLHS (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A programming language doesn't convey meaning: it's the non-physical equivalent of switches, dials and levers, a means to control a non-sentient device. A detonator doesn't mean "boom", a gas pedal doesn't mean "go", and a steering wheel doesn't mean "turn or go straight". Human beings can infer meanings from them, just as they can infer from a stain on my shirt what I had for lunch, but those meanings aren't inherent in the symbols and keywords themselves. I'm typing this by applying pressure on pieces of plastic in order to change the conductive properties of circuitry inside the computer. The fact that I can thereby produce the full range of written expression in pretty much all the languages in the world does not change the fact that these are pieces of plastic, not language.
 * While the inventory of symbols and syntax in all the programming languages in the world is indeed useful information, it's simply not dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a clever but in my view incorrect argument. The interpreter of a symbol being a computer does not change there being meanings to symbols, keywords and APIs of programming languages. The meaning of such a symbol is what the symbol does or what specification it stands for. Thus, in some languages, ! refers to negation, regardless of the particular rendering in particular assembly language; to say that the meaning of ! is negation sounds like a perfectly sensible thing to say. Searching for yields the following questions asked: "The python <- operator: what does it mean?", "python - Go "&^" operator, what does it mean?", and "What does the operator !== mean?". A slightly different search finds "mysql - What does the KEY keyword mean?" and "C++: What does the explicit keyword in C++ mean?". (Note that I am not defending inclusion of computing symbols; I only comment on the argument presented.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've typically leaned towards inclusion when it comes to programming languages, but Chuck Entz's argument is the most convincing I've seen for deletion, and I think he has won me over... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; the following is a repetition of what I said elsewhere. What sort of attestation (WT:ATTEST) would that be? All keywords and all APIs in computing languages, quasi-attested in source code? Shall we include JOptionPane (Java), std::cin (C++), equ (Win Batch), foreach (Perl) as quasi-attested in source code? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing broad consensus for the computing senses to be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)