Re^3: Code tags warning

in reply to Re^2: Code tags warning
in thread Code tags warning

If you can get zero false-positives by using automation, then instead of not having no submit button, add the code tags automatically.

I would propose that there also be a way around these heuristics. That is, I like the computer being smart. But not too smart.

Ah, so that's in the case that the "zero false positives" is actually for values greater than 0? ;-)

Comment on Re^3: Code tags warning

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Code tags warning by Tanktalus (Canon) on Mar 15, 2005 at 15:31 UTC
Figuring out that there are missing code tags is much easier than figuring out where they should go. For example, if I have: $blah[0] = $blah[1], is that: $blah`[0]` = $blah`[1]`, or is it `$blah[0]` = `$blah[1]`, or is it $blah`[0] = $blah[1]`, or is it $blah`[`0`]` = $blah`[`1`]`, or is it ... you get the idea. Figuring out that the ['s and ]'s are supposed to be in code tags is solvable. Figuring out where those codes should have been ... probably is not solvable. Given the ++/-- score of my post and ambrus' post, it seems that there is no clear majority on this, which, IMO, means the status quo wins. (Without a clear majority, the gods would be ill-advised to spend time on a feature that would likely take much effort for little return.) That's fine by me - I was just expanding on the OP, in the way I understood it anyway.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Code tags warning
by Tanktalus (Canon) on Mar 15, 2005 at 15:31 UTC

Figuring out that there are missing code tags is much easier than figuring out where they should go. For example, if I have: $blah[0] = $blah[1], is that: $blah[0] = $blah[1], or is it $blah[0] = $blah[1], or is it $blah[0] = $blah[1], or is it $blah[0] = $blah[1], or is it ... you get the idea. Figuring out that the ['s and ]'s are supposed to be in code tags is solvable. Figuring out where those codes should have been ... probably is not solvable.

Given the ++/-- score of my post and ambrus' post, it seems that there is no clear majority on this, which, IMO, means the status quo wins. (Without a clear majority, the gods would be ill-advised to spend time on a feature that would likely take much effort for little return.) That's fine by me - I was just expanding on the OP, in the way I understood it anyway.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion