This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/metasyntactic-variable.html kf4yfd ( talk) 20:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"Nyuszika7H" created an account just to propose the merge. I see no discussion from the proposer, but it looks like there has been plenty from everyone else over the years, without a pro-merge consensus. I do not know enough to argue whether Foobar is or is not a metasyntactic variable, but from a user perspective, I find it far more notable and in need of an independent article. Unless someone wants to argue this again, I'll delete that proposal in a few days.-- Martin Berka T| C 12:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The term "metasyntactic variable" is used in this article to specifically denote the concept as it pertains only to computer science and programming language theory.
The "meta-syntax" part does imply that the word transcends the normal grammar and rules of the programming language. By example: the word foo can be the name of a variable, function, data structure, or more. It is also universally understood and implied that the common metasyntactic variables foo, bar, baz, spam and others and are used as an example only in source code. These words are used in places where the programmer should use artistic license and use a better or more meaningful name in their actual program.. kf4yfd ( talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, am I wrong to believe that a MSV rather has to do with semantics?
RFC3092- "The etymology of foo" describes the use of a metasyntactic variable.
Metasyntactic variables are used with variables, placeholder names are commonly only used to describe nouns.
Placeholder names are used in human communications in place of the correct word. A metasyntactic variable is "a variable of a variable", hence the meta. Somewhere along the line these 2 pages have crossed paths and intermingled and need to be re-separated. Merging these 2 pages would only add to what is already a mess. kf4yfd 13:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a large chunk of the examples, as the article was mostly an example farm. Please use some judgment in building the article back up so that it doesn't turn into an unwieldy mess again. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metasyntactic_variable/Archive_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kf4yfd ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there an example from the Ruby (or Python) documentation that could be used? The example from Variable "foo" and Other Programming Oddities doesn't provide the context. That's why I quoted Kernighan in the article. -- Jtir ( talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[Copied from User talk:Jtir to maintain context.] -- Jtir ( talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping on the cleanup of this article, it was a disaster. I do not believe that the Kernighan example of foo is sufficient to give an example of the use of a metasyntactic variable and a more complete code snippet would be better. That example in fact is about the use of local and global variables. Mabey an example in BASIC would be one better still. Let me know your thoughs. Also why delete relevant and properly cited information, especially on a very short page relating to an advanced concept. A lot of "googling" to find references went into keeping as much relevant info from the "Pre Cleanup Taskforce" page. kf4yfd ( talk) 14:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is f1 in the Kernighan example a metasyntactic variable or a placeholder name? -- Jtir ( talk) 14:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does the word 'wibble' redirect here? I can't find any mention of it in the article. 86.0.108.178 ( talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this the exact same thing as a metalinguistic variable ? Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Suppliers and Parts database a meta-variable? TMC1221 ( talk) 05:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the word STRING in the Python example is not a normal metasyntactic variable (it's not normal Python either; someone should fix that tutorial). The whole point with a metasyntactic variable name is to be an obviously nonsense word, to tell the reader:
This is why x, i, STRING and so on aren't metasyntactic variables. They can be applied in any context. If you copy an example which uses i as an array index, you will keep the i. If you copy some code which uses foo, you are supposed to change foo to something suitable. JöG ( talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
erm yeah. i understand what a metasyntactic variable is but dont see how the python eg. is one? isn't it just a string with something that looks like a comment in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.124.181 ( talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Eric Raymond is the only person who uses this term. Raymond is well known for claiming that his personal opinions/coined phrases are representative of the entire programmer community. This article is in Wikipedia because Wikipedia did an import of the Jargon file. There is no citation in the article of anyone else ever using the term. Ideally, the content should be merged into foo and all mention of "metasyntactic" dropped. -- Arvindn ( talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
R language definition, http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-lang.pdf uses these in section 4.3.2 (illustrating partial matching of named arguments in function calls) 193.40.5.245 ( talk) 18:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
xyzzy and plugh are references to Colossal Cave Adventure. I don't have a link but I think that bar, blee and baz may be in the Zork text adventure games. However, I am not sure of the direction of reference. If they are in Zork, it may be a reference to metasyntactics in other programs. -- SaintD1970 ( talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Most of the time, the term "metasyntactic variable" is used as just a fancy-sounding way of saying "placeholder" or "arbitrary variable". Usually there is nothing metasyntactic going on.
For instance, when a Python tutorial says that you can append one list onto another by writing spam.append(eggs)
, neither "spam" nor "eggs" is being used metasyntactically. They are being used as the names of ordinary Python variables. These names are placeholders, because in real code you would use variable names that were meaningful in the application domain. The names "spam" and "eggs" are arbitrary but there is no meta-syntax here.
In contrast, here is a metasyntactic statement: "If spam and eggs are both valid Python expressions, then (spam, eggs) is a valid expression." This does not mean that the literal string "spam" is valid Python. Rather, it means that if you have two valid expressions -- such as 1 + 1 and "goat" -- then you can make a tuple of them: (1 + 1, "goat"). In this case, "spam" is not a variable of Python; rather, it stands for a piece of Python code.
But saying that "foo" or "spam" is a metasyntactic variable is just hogwash. "Foo" or "spam" are just placeholder names, which are sometimes used metasyntactically and sometimes not. -- 71.146.7.39 ( talk) 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
those placeholders may have been used in the tutorial, but the author was obviously a Monty Python fan. i've spent many hours in #python and my experience is that foo/bar/baz are primarily used (i've never seen SPAM). not that i don't like to see Python referenced wherever possible... but i think using the word "principal" there may be a bit ambiguous. what are some synonyms for "official"? Inhahe ( talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's important that wikipedia doesn't describe the phrase as being used in logic, unless it really is used.
My concern is that logic students read may wikipedia, think it's true, and start using it this way, so that it becomes true. That's not the right order of events. (It would be a different story if you were writing a textbook on logic; then, if you think it should be used this way, you'd be free to use it.)
The concept does indeed appear in logic; I would use the simpler term "metavariable" and perhaps that is widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputScientist ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Greg, the book reference mentions metalinguistic variable, and there is no evidence that logicians ever use the phrase metasyntactic variable. In the current form of the page, that's very unclear. I'm concerned that logic students will start saying metasyntactic variable because of this page; that's not the right order of events. Wikipedia should not influence society in that way. I have no hidden agenda: I am a both a professional logician and computer scientist.
To me, the concept used by logicians is more important than the fact that the word "metasyntactic" is used in a jocular way by hackers (e.g "foo is the first metasyntactic variable", meaning "foo is the first variable name we use when we can't think of one"). I would be in favour of renaming this page "metalinguistic variable", to make the hackers' jocular use of "metasyntactic" a subsection of the page, rather than the primary focus. What do you think? This has clearly confused many people in the past, above, and it would be good to sort it out. I would like to have a go, but I'm worried you'll just keep reverting me. ComputScientist ( talk) 06:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
<de-indenting>
Create an article for metavariable, talking about how that term is used in the field of formal logic, etc, if you want, but please DO NOT get rid of the metasyntactic variable article. The term has been used in computer science since it appeared in the Jargon file definition of "Foo" sometime in the 1970s or so (I myself first saw the term there circa 1977), and it is now quite well-known. (Google shows about 7,000 hits for "metasyntactic variable", for instance.) Things like 'foo' are not just a meta-variable, because the same symbols(s) (e.g. "foo") are used in many different syntaxes, and recognized across those multiple syntaxes as being the same thing - i.e. a meta-variable. So it's a cross-syntax metavariable - i.e. a meta-syntactic variable - just like the name of the article. Noel (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that we might do this very soon, so I propose that the article is moved to Metavariable, and the contents that are specific go into a new article Metasyntactic variable together with some additions. However, in regard of the ideas given below, we could also go for MV (logic) and MV (computer science) and have the latter subsume MSV. Best, Morton Shumway— talk 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
Please find a new article Metavariable (logic). Best, Morton Shumway— talk 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
Let me attempt to summarize the situation.
Two different concepts. The concept intended by "metasyntactic variable" by the programmer community is hard to pin down, perhaps the term means many things. We cannot find a precise definition, but it includes "a variable-name that you use when you don't want to think of one". The concept intended by "metavariable" by logicians is a precise one, and it does not include all the concepts that are described by "metasyntactic variable".
Two different terms. The term "metasyntactic variable" is never used in formal scientific literature. But the term "metavariable" is used in texts on logic.
Some points that have been raised:
Let me know if I have missed anything out. If there is some consensus, then I or someone else can have a go a making a new page. ComputScientist ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, ComputScientist, for the resummee and to kf4yfd for the additional input. Please let us not forget that we did not only discuss this to clarify the concept in CS, but also to do justice to logic. Finally, the concept/term issue can also imply one article that has a second, related concept as a subtopic. This could be the case with MSV and MV in CS, so they could go in one. The logically more strict idea of MV as discussed should go into one, at least. I will continue at the discussion about this above. Best, Morton Shumway— talk 22:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
Please find a new article Metavariable (logic). Best, Morton Shumway— talk 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
Per the discussion on this page, and a discussion with a few admins, this page was moved to metavariable (logic). A large amount of cleanup is however needed. kf4yfd ( talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The pages Ned Baker redirects here. But the phrase does not appear on this page. Should "Ned Baker" appear on this page? or should the page Ned Baker be deleted? ComputScientist ( talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Foo and bar as used in the programming language examples are not metasyntactic variables, but simply customary names for variables used in programming examples just as x is commonly used as a variable name in math, e.g. when one writes f(x) = x2. There's nothing meta-syntactic there. The RFCs cited in RFC 3092 actually do use FOO as a metasyntactic variable, e.g. RFC 772 contains "For example, if MRSQ R was in effect and some MRCPs had been given, and a MAIL FROM:<X@Y> TO:<FOO><CRLF> was done, there would be no way to distinguish a failure reply for mailbox "FOO" from a global failure for all recipients specified." Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Since the edit summary got chopped in the last move, here's what I was thinking: I was planning to put a dab at Metasyntactic variable to prevent people from adding stuff unrelated to computing to this article (like placeholder names for people which it seems to have in the last section for some foreign languages) and rename the present article to Metasyntactic variable (computing). However, the dab would be just a two-line summary of this article, so it's probably not kosher. If we were to follow the DAB rules strictly, only the bastardized/reified meaning of "metasyntactic variable" as meaningless-word-usually-foo-used-in-any-context-but-typically-as-identifier would need a separate page, but that would be too confusing for the average computer (as opposed to logic) geek. So this page should remain a WP:CONCEPTDAB of sorts, now that I've clarified the lead. Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Talmud reference is exactly the same (from a metavar perspective) as Alice and Bob. Therefore, either both should be in the commonly used section (I would argue that these days Alice and Bob are more commonly/widely used than the Talmud) or both in See Also. Glennglazer ( talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
MIT & Stanford. Why an unusual string is useful. Epistemology. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 ( talk) 02:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The list of words from other languages looks like a big mess. Most do not cite any references. Furthermore, it seems that most are unrelated to the subject of this article, and refer to words used in general as placeholder names.-- 128.183.2.230 ( talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I know the jargon file claims wibble, wobble etc are used instead of foo, bar, baz... in the UK but I've never come across this in practice. Given that this supposedly originates in Blackadder, maybe it was a 1980s thing before programmers from different countries started sharing code fragments online? Or maybe it was used by some contributors to the jargon file. It would be interesting to see if we can find another source for this that isn't just copying it from the jargon file - I couldn't find any in a brief search just now. In my experience most programmers nowadays don't use any of the words mentioned in this article, but those who do use the "American" foo, bar, baz etc. Eggybacon ( talk) 12:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metasyntactic variable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's also worth adding that myFunction and myClass or myObject are used as meta syntaxes in function names and class names or object names too. myVar is also widely used. DavidNyan22467 ( talk) 07:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/metasyntactic-variable.html kf4yfd ( talk) 20:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
"Nyuszika7H" created an account just to propose the merge. I see no discussion from the proposer, but it looks like there has been plenty from everyone else over the years, without a pro-merge consensus. I do not know enough to argue whether Foobar is or is not a metasyntactic variable, but from a user perspective, I find it far more notable and in need of an independent article. Unless someone wants to argue this again, I'll delete that proposal in a few days.-- Martin Berka T| C 12:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The term "metasyntactic variable" is used in this article to specifically denote the concept as it pertains only to computer science and programming language theory.
The "meta-syntax" part does imply that the word transcends the normal grammar and rules of the programming language. By example: the word foo can be the name of a variable, function, data structure, or more. It is also universally understood and implied that the common metasyntactic variables foo, bar, baz, spam and others and are used as an example only in source code. These words are used in places where the programmer should use artistic license and use a better or more meaningful name in their actual program.. kf4yfd ( talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, am I wrong to believe that a MSV rather has to do with semantics?
RFC3092- "The etymology of foo" describes the use of a metasyntactic variable.
Metasyntactic variables are used with variables, placeholder names are commonly only used to describe nouns.
Placeholder names are used in human communications in place of the correct word. A metasyntactic variable is "a variable of a variable", hence the meta. Somewhere along the line these 2 pages have crossed paths and intermingled and need to be re-separated. Merging these 2 pages would only add to what is already a mess. kf4yfd 13:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a large chunk of the examples, as the article was mostly an example farm. Please use some judgment in building the article back up so that it doesn't turn into an unwieldy mess again. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metasyntactic_variable/Archive_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kf4yfd ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there an example from the Ruby (or Python) documentation that could be used? The example from Variable "foo" and Other Programming Oddities doesn't provide the context. That's why I quoted Kernighan in the article. -- Jtir ( talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[Copied from User talk:Jtir to maintain context.] -- Jtir ( talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping on the cleanup of this article, it was a disaster. I do not believe that the Kernighan example of foo is sufficient to give an example of the use of a metasyntactic variable and a more complete code snippet would be better. That example in fact is about the use of local and global variables. Mabey an example in BASIC would be one better still. Let me know your thoughs. Also why delete relevant and properly cited information, especially on a very short page relating to an advanced concept. A lot of "googling" to find references went into keeping as much relevant info from the "Pre Cleanup Taskforce" page. kf4yfd ( talk) 14:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is f1 in the Kernighan example a metasyntactic variable or a placeholder name? -- Jtir ( talk) 14:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does the word 'wibble' redirect here? I can't find any mention of it in the article. 86.0.108.178 ( talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this the exact same thing as a metalinguistic variable ? Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Suppliers and Parts database a meta-variable? TMC1221 ( talk) 05:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the word STRING in the Python example is not a normal metasyntactic variable (it's not normal Python either; someone should fix that tutorial). The whole point with a metasyntactic variable name is to be an obviously nonsense word, to tell the reader:
This is why x, i, STRING and so on aren't metasyntactic variables. They can be applied in any context. If you copy an example which uses i as an array index, you will keep the i. If you copy some code which uses foo, you are supposed to change foo to something suitable. JöG ( talk) 19:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
erm yeah. i understand what a metasyntactic variable is but dont see how the python eg. is one? isn't it just a string with something that looks like a comment in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.124.181 ( talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Eric Raymond is the only person who uses this term. Raymond is well known for claiming that his personal opinions/coined phrases are representative of the entire programmer community. This article is in Wikipedia because Wikipedia did an import of the Jargon file. There is no citation in the article of anyone else ever using the term. Ideally, the content should be merged into foo and all mention of "metasyntactic" dropped. -- Arvindn ( talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
R language definition, http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-lang.pdf uses these in section 4.3.2 (illustrating partial matching of named arguments in function calls) 193.40.5.245 ( talk) 18:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
xyzzy and plugh are references to Colossal Cave Adventure. I don't have a link but I think that bar, blee and baz may be in the Zork text adventure games. However, I am not sure of the direction of reference. If they are in Zork, it may be a reference to metasyntactics in other programs. -- SaintD1970 ( talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Most of the time, the term "metasyntactic variable" is used as just a fancy-sounding way of saying "placeholder" or "arbitrary variable". Usually there is nothing metasyntactic going on.
For instance, when a Python tutorial says that you can append one list onto another by writing spam.append(eggs)
, neither "spam" nor "eggs" is being used metasyntactically. They are being used as the names of ordinary Python variables. These names are placeholders, because in real code you would use variable names that were meaningful in the application domain. The names "spam" and "eggs" are arbitrary but there is no meta-syntax here.
In contrast, here is a metasyntactic statement: "If spam and eggs are both valid Python expressions, then (spam, eggs) is a valid expression." This does not mean that the literal string "spam" is valid Python. Rather, it means that if you have two valid expressions -- such as 1 + 1 and "goat" -- then you can make a tuple of them: (1 + 1, "goat"). In this case, "spam" is not a variable of Python; rather, it stands for a piece of Python code.
But saying that "foo" or "spam" is a metasyntactic variable is just hogwash. "Foo" or "spam" are just placeholder names, which are sometimes used metasyntactically and sometimes not. -- 71.146.7.39 ( talk) 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
those placeholders may have been used in the tutorial, but the author was obviously a Monty Python fan. i've spent many hours in #python and my experience is that foo/bar/baz are primarily used (i've never seen SPAM). not that i don't like to see Python referenced wherever possible... but i think using the word "principal" there may be a bit ambiguous. what are some synonyms for "official"? Inhahe ( talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's important that wikipedia doesn't describe the phrase as being used in logic, unless it really is used.
My concern is that logic students read may wikipedia, think it's true, and start using it this way, so that it becomes true. That's not the right order of events. (It would be a different story if you were writing a textbook on logic; then, if you think it should be used this way, you'd be free to use it.)
The concept does indeed appear in logic; I would use the simpler term "metavariable" and perhaps that is widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputScientist ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Greg, the book reference mentions metalinguistic variable, and there is no evidence that logicians ever use the phrase metasyntactic variable. In the current form of the page, that's very unclear. I'm concerned that logic students will start saying metasyntactic variable because of this page; that's not the right order of events. Wikipedia should not influence society in that way. I have no hidden agenda: I am a both a professional logician and computer scientist.
To me, the concept used by logicians is more important than the fact that the word "metasyntactic" is used in a jocular way by hackers (e.g "foo is the first metasyntactic variable", meaning "foo is the first variable name we use when we can't think of one"). I would be in favour of renaming this page "metalinguistic variable", to make the hackers' jocular use of "metasyntactic" a subsection of the page, rather than the primary focus. What do you think? This has clearly confused many people in the past, above, and it would be good to sort it out. I would like to have a go, but I'm worried you'll just keep reverting me. ComputScientist ( talk) 06:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
<de-indenting>
Create an article for metavariable, talking about how that term is used in the field of formal logic, etc, if you want, but please DO NOT get rid of the metasyntactic variable article. The term has been used in computer science since it appeared in the Jargon file definition of "Foo" sometime in the 1970s or so (I myself first saw the term there circa 1977), and it is now quite well-known. (Google shows about 7,000 hits for "metasyntactic variable", for instance.) Things like 'foo' are not just a meta-variable, because the same symbols(s) (e.g. "foo") are used in many different syntaxes, and recognized across those multiple syntaxes as being the same thing - i.e. a meta-variable. So it's a cross-syntax metavariable - i.e. a meta-syntactic variable - just like the name of the article. Noel (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that we might do this very soon, so I propose that the article is moved to Metavariable, and the contents that are specific go into a new article Metasyntactic variable together with some additions. However, in regard of the ideas given below, we could also go for MV (logic) and MV (computer science) and have the latter subsume MSV. Best, Morton Shumway— talk 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
Please find a new article Metavariable (logic). Best, Morton Shumway— talk 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
Let me attempt to summarize the situation.
Two different concepts. The concept intended by "metasyntactic variable" by the programmer community is hard to pin down, perhaps the term means many things. We cannot find a precise definition, but it includes "a variable-name that you use when you don't want to think of one". The concept intended by "metavariable" by logicians is a precise one, and it does not include all the concepts that are described by "metasyntactic variable".
Two different terms. The term "metasyntactic variable" is never used in formal scientific literature. But the term "metavariable" is used in texts on logic.
Some points that have been raised:
Let me know if I have missed anything out. If there is some consensus, then I or someone else can have a go a making a new page. ComputScientist ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, ComputScientist, for the resummee and to kf4yfd for the additional input. Please let us not forget that we did not only discuss this to clarify the concept in CS, but also to do justice to logic. Finally, the concept/term issue can also imply one article that has a second, related concept as a subtopic. This could be the case with MSV and MV in CS, so they could go in one. The logically more strict idea of MV as discussed should go into one, at least. I will continue at the discussion about this above. Best, Morton Shumway— talk 22:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
Please find a new article Metavariable (logic). Best, Morton Shumway— talk 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
Per the discussion on this page, and a discussion with a few admins, this page was moved to metavariable (logic). A large amount of cleanup is however needed. kf4yfd ( talk) 03:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The pages Ned Baker redirects here. But the phrase does not appear on this page. Should "Ned Baker" appear on this page? or should the page Ned Baker be deleted? ComputScientist ( talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Foo and bar as used in the programming language examples are not metasyntactic variables, but simply customary names for variables used in programming examples just as x is commonly used as a variable name in math, e.g. when one writes f(x) = x2. There's nothing meta-syntactic there. The RFCs cited in RFC 3092 actually do use FOO as a metasyntactic variable, e.g. RFC 772 contains "For example, if MRSQ R was in effect and some MRCPs had been given, and a MAIL FROM:<X@Y> TO:<FOO><CRLF> was done, there would be no way to distinguish a failure reply for mailbox "FOO" from a global failure for all recipients specified." Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Since the edit summary got chopped in the last move, here's what I was thinking: I was planning to put a dab at Metasyntactic variable to prevent people from adding stuff unrelated to computing to this article (like placeholder names for people which it seems to have in the last section for some foreign languages) and rename the present article to Metasyntactic variable (computing). However, the dab would be just a two-line summary of this article, so it's probably not kosher. If we were to follow the DAB rules strictly, only the bastardized/reified meaning of "metasyntactic variable" as meaningless-word-usually-foo-used-in-any-context-but-typically-as-identifier would need a separate page, but that would be too confusing for the average computer (as opposed to logic) geek. So this page should remain a WP:CONCEPTDAB of sorts, now that I've clarified the lead. Tijfo098 ( talk) 06:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Talmud reference is exactly the same (from a metavar perspective) as Alice and Bob. Therefore, either both should be in the commonly used section (I would argue that these days Alice and Bob are more commonly/widely used than the Talmud) or both in See Also. Glennglazer ( talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
MIT & Stanford. Why an unusual string is useful. Epistemology. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 ( talk) 02:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The list of words from other languages looks like a big mess. Most do not cite any references. Furthermore, it seems that most are unrelated to the subject of this article, and refer to words used in general as placeholder names.-- 128.183.2.230 ( talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I know the jargon file claims wibble, wobble etc are used instead of foo, bar, baz... in the UK but I've never come across this in practice. Given that this supposedly originates in Blackadder, maybe it was a 1980s thing before programmers from different countries started sharing code fragments online? Or maybe it was used by some contributors to the jargon file. It would be interesting to see if we can find another source for this that isn't just copying it from the jargon file - I couldn't find any in a brief search just now. In my experience most programmers nowadays don't use any of the words mentioned in this article, but those who do use the "American" foo, bar, baz etc. Eggybacon ( talk) 12:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metasyntactic variable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's also worth adding that myFunction and myClass or myObject are used as meta syntaxes in function names and class names or object names too. myVar is also widely used. DavidNyan22467 ( talk) 07:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)