Talk:AERO

Errm, what purpose does removing the examples serve? All it seems to achieve is adding a new stub to gather dust, and make the article less helpful... --GameFreak 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As fuzzie says on your Talk page: firstly, it doesn't do any good to just duplicate content; and secondly, the examples that were on this page didn't show anything about the actual effect of AERO. They could have been about any of CAOS's physical vars. My 'antigravity' example in ACCG, for instance, although not the best, does demonstrate what ACCG actually does. I'd prefer to have stubs rather than examples that don't illustrate anything. --Alexwatson 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand you would rather not re-state information, and yes, it could be used for the other physics commands, but what if somebody only looks at this one because they only need help with this one?
 * Well, since my opinion doesn't seem to count for much in these matters, I'll leave to the rest of you to decide over it. Although, I will say that as no examples could really demonstrate better, you might aswell remove the heading...
 * GameFreak 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The way I figure, the examples you provided are more about illustrating basic ways of using CAOS rather than how AERO works. If people don't know how CAOS works they'd do better to look at other documents; if they do, they'll understand that AERO goes where you'd expect an integer, or takes an integer argument, from the main article. So what we need instead is an example which uses AERO to do something cool or useful. Obviously I couldn't think of anything that did that, which is why I stubbed it out. I might as well've removed the example heading, but I figured it'd help everyone remember what was missing. --Alexwatson 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point, and the reason that I started documenting CAOS commands...
 * If somebody is looking up AERO, we must assume they -DON'T- know how to use it, which is why they're looking it up. Therefore the examples were designed to show where it should be in actual CAOS.
 * GameFreak 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you should assume they know how to use CAOS, but don't know how to use AERO. So, in my opinion, the article should be clear about how to use AERO (and I think basic examples would be useful *as well as* advanced examples, myself), and point elsewhere for people who really have absolutely no clue about CAOS, where it can be explained in an efficient fashion. But, opinion. - Fuzzie 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What fuzzie said, basically. When I started out documenting these I was learning the commands as fast as I was writing about them, but I already knew CAOS's syntax, so all I needed to know was 'returns an integer' and I could already see how I'd slot AERO into some code. This documentation should describe the commands, not the language, because there are better places for that. --Alexwatson 18:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)