Talk:user-defined type

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

user-defined type

can't really get more SoP than this -- Liliana • 12:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We could remove "for a special purpose" from the definition (since I might define a type for a perfectly ordinary purpose), so then, yes, totally transparent; delete. Now I'm wondering about user-defined graphic (created by me, a long time ago): perhaps that deserves keeping because of the non-obvious fact that the graphic replaces a text character in the "font" and is thus a certain size and can be typed on the keyboard (not just any graphic defined by a user, e.g. a sprite). Of course keep the abbrs UDT, UDG, anyhow. Equinox ◑ 12:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Equinox. User-defined graphic does seem different. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete, and I didn't even have to look to know who created it. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm..which sense of "type" or just any? --Hekaheka (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

data type. Equinox ◑ 13:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Type has this definition by the way. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's no entry for user-defined. Maybe there should be one. Donnanz (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Nor for user-definable (in my Oxford hard copy). Donnanz (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Hyphens work like spaces. We can talk about a "dog-bitten carpet", etc. but it doesn't require an entry. Equinox ◑ 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Hmm, Wiktionary is so case-sensitive that hyphens don't work like spaces. Donnanz (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Ironically, there are separate entries for case-sensitive and case sensitive. Donnanz (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Case-sensitivity has nothing to do with hyphens and spaces. Equinox means in terms of meaning user-defined and user defined as the same thing. Two words linked by a hyphen don't make a single word, no more than two words linked by a space are a single word. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Equinox does not need a spokesperson. As far as this entry is concerned, I have decided to abstain. Donnanz (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, delete. — Keφr 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep as an important computing term. UDT is the common abbreviation. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We've already established multiple times that the existence of an abbreviation does not automatically mean the non-abbreviated form should be included. --WikiTiki89 02:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't vote for that and I don't see it as our CFI. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Create [[I am not a lawyer]] then, and see what happens. — Keφr 22:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll do just that. Purplebackpack89 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sarcasm, UDT (abbreviating here) is an important term in database and software development. (The phrase [[I am not a lawyer]] is not even a good candidate for a phrase book, so delete.) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not sarcasm, it's a real analogy. You're confusing the thing with the word. User-defined types may be important to computer science, but the term "user-defined type" is nothing special. Steel trusses are important in engineering, that doesn't mean we need to include "steel truss". --WikiTiki89 23:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Steel trusses" don't require definition but I'm not an expert in engineering. We do have a number of medical terms, diseases, computer, linguistic terms, various daily items, which are SoP's. Being SoP is not reason for a deletion, even if some people like you think being a SoP alone a good reason for deletion. We have nominative case, gas station, lung cancer, apple tree, etc. "User-defined type" or UDT is a special data type for which various software giants have their own definitions. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying create [[white car]], since we have [[white bear]] IS a sarcasm and is not a real analogy at all. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"for which various software giants have their own definitions"? Evidence please. --WikiTiki89 00:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Synonymous with "user-defined data type" (the word "data" should be in the definition). From the web, e.g. Microsoft: "Holds data in a format you define. The Structure statement defines the format.". PostgreSQL: "data types defined below the level of the SQL language". This includes object-oriented classes, which are not part of standard libraries, so there is plenty of definitions in object-oriented environments as well. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Type" is often used as short for "data type"; it's no different when it's in a phrase. "Holds data in a format you define" and "data types defined below the level of the […] language" are equivalent to the SOP definition. But don't confuse definitions with implementation details. The "Structure" statement is specific to the syntax of Visual Basic, "SQL" just a particular language, and classes are just the form of user-defined types used in object-oriented languages. --WikiTiki89 00:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed above that having an abbreviation is sufficient for a phrase to be considered idiomatic, so I offered a counterexample. white bear has a definition under which a grizzly bear which stumbled into a jar of white paint does not fall, which makes the term idiomatic. I cannot see anything analogous about user-defined type, which is precisely a type defined by a user. — Keφr 08:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, we have to be careful about colours, but brown bear is also justifiable, especially in countries like Norway which have both species. But red dress and blue lagoon wouldn't qualify; there is an entry for pink elephant though. Donnanz (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reconsidered. Yes, delete. I'll make changes to UDT, since it's an important abbreviation and make SOP translations. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)