Talk:Scalar (computing)

Pronunciation?

Anyone object to me writing a pronunciation section for this word? Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge

i'm tagging this for merge into Variable (computing) Aunva6 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Variable (computer science)

this subject is not comprehensive/notable enough to warrant its own article Aunva6 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think there's much to merge either. CharmlessCoin (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, it's simply a subset of variable types so it would make sense to redirect to a section of the Variable (computer science) page. This would also make comparison with other variable types more convenient. Alanaktion (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not redirected to a specific section, as I couldn't decide which one to point to. CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't merged, it was just redirected, effectively deleting the article. The word "scalar" does not appear anywhere in the variable article, except to note that scalar redirects to variable. It implies that "scalar" and "variable" are synonyms. The information from the old scalar article needs to be added to the variable article. Gilly3 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constants can be scalars. Put that in your redirect and smoke it. Article should be restored. 67.182.168.147 (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "scalar" on the variable page and didn't find it. I still had no idea what a scalar was until I followed the link to the old article kindly provided above. I agree that this merge was an error, especially considering that scalars are NOT a subset of variables. Please revert the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.124.12 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same experience as above, searching for scalar, not finding it and then finding the old link here. The old scalar article mentions "Generally, all basic primitive data types are considered scalar". So perhaps change the redirect to point at primitive data types and add a little blurb there about the scalar term as well ? Maben101 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sounds reasonable 67.182.168.147 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

JalenFolf, as above, this article was never merged anywhere, making this redirect very unhelpful and misleading. It should be reinstated until someone actually merges the content somewhere. This content does not fit as a section on the Variable article nor does it fit on the Primitive data type page. 81.40.73.148 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this to scalar processor, which I thought was the most relevant target. Neither of the proposed targets above are suitable in my opinion: variable (computer science) because a scalar need not be a variable, and primitive data type because scalar need not be primitive and primitives need not be scalar. The GIMPS project deals with massive integers that are anything but primitive, and yet as an integer are still scalars. SpinningSpark 12:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]