Talk:Locality of reference: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>D. Matt Innis |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
I didn't change it but in my opinion the use of "memory address" in the article is confusing, e.g. | I didn't change it but in my opinion the use of "memory address" in the article is confusing, e.g. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
This: | This: | ||
:{{stub}} | :<nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> | ||
does not belong on the page itself, but only on the talk page; and besides, it's no longer a stub, is it? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:28, 21 February 2007 (CST) | does not belong on the page itself, but only on the talk page; and besides, it's no longer a stub, is it? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:28, 21 February 2007 (CST) | ||
:...nice to come upon such an opinion, I've just started to clean it up and asked for speedydelete. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 10:21, 16 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
== I don't think this article is Status 1 == | |||
It has no Definition, Bibliography or External Links subpages. I think all of the standard subpages (Talk, Definition, Related Articles, Bibliography, and External Links) should be created and each populated with at least 1 item before an article is considered to be status 1. I also believe that it should have at least 1 reference (altho some would disagree with me on that). [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== copyedit? == | |||
I saw this sentence in the last section about problem references and thought it was a copyedit, but then was not sure if it is just computer jargon with the use of the word "spend" as a proper noun? At any rate, I figure someone will know the if that is the case. | |||
*''They will have spend resources to fetch more than what was immediately needed but the additional memory content fetched is now useless and the additional resources spend thus wasted.'' | |||
should it be: | |||
*''They will have '''to''' spend resources to fetch more than what was immediately needed but the additional memory content fetched is now useless and the additional resources '''spent''' thus wasted.'' | |||
[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 04:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:47, 28 November 2009
I didn't change it but in my opinion the use of "memory address" in the article is confusing, e.g.
memory caches, which attempt to load a range of memory addresses at a time, under the assumption that the excess memory addresses will be loaded soon after.
I would have thought of memory content (or just memory) being loaded and later on accessed, not addresses. But I'm not a native speaker.
--Markus Baumeister 14:27, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Markus,
I agree with your assessment. Informally speaking, one can "load an address", but it is more proper to load the contents at an address. --Nick Johnson 13:38, 21 February 2007 (CST)
swap?
how about memory swapping, quite common in microsoft/unix/mac and all databases.Robert Tito | Talk 13:44, 21 February 2007 (CST)
Stub
This:
- {{stub}}
does not belong on the page itself, but only on the talk page; and besides, it's no longer a stub, is it? --Larry Sanger 14:28, 21 February 2007 (CST)
- ...nice to come upon such an opinion, I've just started to clean it up and asked for speedydelete. --AlekStos 10:21, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
I don't think this article is Status 1
It has no Definition, Bibliography or External Links subpages. I think all of the standard subpages (Talk, Definition, Related Articles, Bibliography, and External Links) should be created and each populated with at least 1 item before an article is considered to be status 1. I also believe that it should have at least 1 reference (altho some would disagree with me on that). Milton Beychok 05:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
copyedit?
I saw this sentence in the last section about problem references and thought it was a copyedit, but then was not sure if it is just computer jargon with the use of the word "spend" as a proper noun? At any rate, I figure someone will know the if that is the case.
- They will have spend resources to fetch more than what was immediately needed but the additional memory content fetched is now useless and the additional resources spend thus wasted.
should it be:
- They will have to spend resources to fetch more than what was immediately needed but the additional memory content fetched is now useless and the additional resources spent thus wasted.
D. Matt Innis 04:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)