Timeline for Do we really need the [recursive] tag?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 2, 2013 at 16:54 | comment | added | ale | See also: meta.superuser.com/questions/6055 | |
Dec 28, 2012 at 17:34 | comment | added | Breakthrough | @barlop I was thinking more in terms of recursively-defined sets, but the functional definition is indeed shared between the mathematical and compsci definitions. | |
Dec 28, 2012 at 16:27 | answer | added | kinokijuf | timeline score: 8 | |
Dec 28, 2012 at 4:38 | comment | added | barlop | @Breakthrough what's the difference between the mathematical definition and the computer science one? | |
Dec 28, 2012 at 1:09 | answer | added | solvingPuzzles | timeline score: 4 | |
Dec 21, 2012 at 0:01 | comment | added | Breakthrough | @Luke lol my bad, I thought you were just throwing the link there for the definition... Haha that's an awesome find. | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 22:23 | comment | added | Canadian Luke | @Breakthrough I agree it shouldn't be on here, but that is also an old Google joke. If you Google Recursion, it asks "Do you mean 'recursion'?" | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 21:14 | comment | added | Breakthrough | @Luke and which of the hundreds of different definitions/uses should we go with? The mathematical definition of a recursive function? The computer science definition, which really has no relation to the "recursive" flag found in most CLI utilities (as the set is already known to be finite)? The definition from a commonly used English dictionary? Based on the definition from some GNU utilities? Am I wrong to believe that if we can't come up with an effective definition for a particular tag, then perhaps that particular tag shouldn't be on Super User to begin with? | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 20:35 | comment | added | Canadian Luke | google.ca/… | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 19:44 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | The original comment was meant to give you a chance to reinforce your case, as it wasn't clear why you showed the related tag distribution (the opposite, a strong correlation between tags, could be used to reinforce tag removal/synonyms, so why show that this isn't the case?). I'm still on the fence about the tag. | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 19:37 | comment | added | Breakthrough | And on that point, perhaps another equally relevant question to ask is, how would you describe the tag in its Wiki entry? Could you give it a "meaningful" definition (meaningful being with respect to what tags are and what they're used for)? | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 19:33 | comment | added | Breakthrough | @DanielBeck I don't mean to imply that all tags need to be redundant, but there's clearly a disparity between the tag's meaning, and how useful it becomes as a tag. Do you think a generic command-line switch deserves a tag in it's own-right? | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 19:06 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | So the discovery that it's not a redundant tag makes it somehow less relevant? | |
Dec 20, 2012 at 19:03 | history | edited | Breakthrough | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 259 characters in body
|
Dec 20, 2012 at 18:50 | history | asked | Breakthrough | CC BY-SA 3.0 |