Module talk:Buffer

Input

@Jackmcbarn and Mr. Stradivarius: Would like some input on this module, mostly on regarding the documentation and whether anything is unclear. It is a spinoff from code developed for Module:Asbox, which now uses this (so avoid commenting directly in code, or at least make in-code comments in sandbox to avoid job queue flooding). There shouldn't be any bugs other than those noted in the documentation. Also, you guys should also probably edit protect this for template editors. —CodeHydro 15:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may take a while to take in. I'll come back to this when I have an hour or two to spare and a nice, strong coffee. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

54.163.11.138 (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERF

Why exactly is the documentation here making recommendations that ignore WP:PERF? Aiming to improve module performance on individual pages is fine, since all modules on a page share the same execution time limit, but worrying about the cumulative effects on the servers of a minor syntactic difference applied to hundreds of thousands of pages just reeks of blatantly and flippantly ignoring both the spirit and the letter of WP:PERF. Of particular relevance is the section WP:PERF#Editors still have a role to play, and especially the line "Worry about performance if you can tell the difference yourself." (Note that I am not suggesting the module itself should be recoded, only that the documentation should be rewritten to not tell people to worry about the impacts of their coding choices when said impacts are only detectable when measured across thousands of pages.) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 22:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the necessary changes to the documentation since over a month has passed with no comment here. It's worth noting, though, that I may have missed some statements, and to comment more generally, it feels to me reading through the documentation, like a lot of it would benefit from a rewrite. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 12:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This module needs a cleanup and proper tests. It has an overload of cryptic names, weird formatting, etc. In short, is there any structure to the code? Jeblad (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Still not refactored? Jeblad (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeblad: Things are slow on Wikipedia, especially when you leave your concerns on unwatched talk pages. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Babies" like this will not be refactored. It is just how tings are on Wiki[mp]edia. Jeblad (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]