What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

A new tag was created 20 hours ago and added to 3 older posts. The tag name itself is way too generic and the tag wiki is:

Customizing generic code for specific cases

Does the community agree that is a meta-tag for Stack Overflow and should be manually removed?

Update: Seems like specialized is a terminology specific to scala. A quick search reveals the following:

One interesting feature that was added to Scala in version 2.8 is specialization, using the @specialized annotation.

Annotate type parameters on which code should be automatically specialized. For example: class MyList[@specialized T] ...

Type T can be specialized on a subset of the primitive types by specifying a list of primitive types to specialize at: class MyList[@specialized(Int, Double, Boolean) T] ..

I guess it is not a meta-tag but an incorrectly named tag, so it should not be removed. How about we rename it to [specialized.scala]?

share|improve this question
    
I agree with you on the idea, but I notice the tag was added only to Scala questions. Maybe this is a technical term that has a specific meaning in Scala, and a better wiki and tag name would be in order instead of plain eliminating this? (Note that I am 100% clueless about Scala.) –  Mat Nov 2 '12 at 10:06
1  
Certainly, that is the exact reason why I didn't remove the tag and asked here. In any case, a rename is essential otherwise it will be a mess to keep the tag usage clean after a while. –  Aziz Shaikh Nov 2 '12 at 10:12

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

This question suggests it's referring to a specific piece of Scala terminology, so it's not a meta tag as such (my emphasis):

Why are so few things @specialized in Scala's standard library?

I've searched for the use of @specialized in the source code of the standard library of Scala 2.8.1. It looks like only a handful of traits and classes use this annotation: Function0, Function1, Function2, Tuple1, Tuple2, Product1, Product2, AbstractFunction0, AbstractFunction1, AbstractFunction2.

That said, I would say it wants a better name: perhaps , if that's indeed the kind of thing it is. And a better tag wiki.

share|improve this answer
    
This seems sane, obvious and well-explained. I've retagged the four questions. Who wants to do the tag wiki? –  Charles Nov 2 '12 at 16:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .