Talk:C++ Programming/About the Book

There is a grammatical error in the following sentence:

However if this is your first contact with programming then continue on reading, and take in consideration that the Programming Paradigms section can be hard to digest if you lack some bases, don't despair, the relevant points will be extended when other concept are introduced, that section is provided to give you a mental framework to help you not only to understand C++, but to let you easily adapt to (and from) other languages that share those concepts.

Should be "...when other concepts are introduced..."

Note that concept is singular in the current form, which creates a disagreement with the following word, "are"


 * Txs for spotting that... I have corrected it now. --Panic (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting goals?
It looks like there has been some conflict about what this book is suppose to be, the oldest charter I could find indicated that this was intended to be a reference book, the structure of this book seems to follow one that of an expanded reference book, but this statement contradicts this:

''This book covers the C++ programming language, its interactions with software design and real life use of the language. It is presented as an introductory to advance course but can be used as reference book.''

Was there any official consensus on this? Phosgram (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was the result of a administrative forced merge of 2 works, even if I was the only one to object to the merge, we can state that it was a consensus as restoring to the previous situation is impossible now.
 * In any case there is no active conflict now. --Panic (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains things. To pose a different question then, would starting a new book with the goal of being strictly a complete and detailed reference of the standard library (basic descriptions \ prototypes \ example code) be acceptable?  There might be a lot of overlap with this book and I'm not sure if it would violate the "Wikibooks is not" guidelines, but if this book is intended to become a introductory to advanced "learn C++" book I'm thinking trying to make it back into a detailed reference book would be "chasing two hares". Phosgram (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is already one Understanding C++ (standard restricted) if you need only to stick to the standard if not and you are intending to duplicate content then extend this one. Take a look on the C Standard part of this book, I think that is what you are proposing, notice that since there is no real editorial control it would be extremely difficult to keep it clean (without the theory part) you can already notice some creep on the C standard library.
 * See if you would like to complete the C++ Programming/Programming Languages/C++/Code/Keywords, I have been doing that slowly as to make it fit the rest of the book the result seems to be what you are after.
 * C++ Programming/Programming Languages/C++/Code/Keywords/union and C++ Programming/Unions can give you an idea. --Panic (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Understanding C++ isn't what I'm considering, you are correct about something similar to C Standard part.
 * See if you would like to complete the Keywords...
 * So the goal of having a full standard reference as part of this book is still being pursued? I guess I'm finding the current guidelines a bit ambiguous as to what scope(s) this book is intending to cover (a "kitchen sink" style C Primer Plus, a K&R-like general overview, an "expanded reference", or something else?). I didn't think a "kitchen-sink" approach would be desirable for the reason you listed (no strict control making it difficult to keep clean). It would be quite difficult to keep the unrelated subsections, such as the reference part of the book and the individual lessons, from mixing together into a tangled mess as new contributors add new content. Phosgram (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The keywords, data types, etc, aren't the a full standard reference...
 * If you have a copy of the standard you can see that it has lots of theory but it can't be used directly to learn the language as it takes for granted that the reader already "knows" the language, it is a reference text. Well it could but it would be extremely difficult to rely only on it for learning the language...
 * To me the scope of this book is all things C++ (until very recently this was the only wikibook on the C++ language), with the concern in the ordering and interconnecting the material in a way it can be used as a learning textbook, so far we have managed that. As I said see if you can work on the keywords for now, I will help you out with making it fit with the rest of the text... --Panic (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing, from the earlier discussions I was able to find, it was suppose to be a reference on the essential features of the language rather then the whole standard. Probably a mistake on my part, but I can't find the page I was reading that proposed the book be a reference guide.
 * I don't think having an "all things C++" scope is realistic if you ever want this book to be finished. There is a near infinite number of topics that could fall under that scope. Phosgram (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We can certainly limit what goes into the book but by definition a Wikibook is never finished at best it will be in a usable state and that can be archived at different states of development, a strict limitation will be harder to implement that leaving it open ended to participation. So far there is much of the basic still missing for example locale and streams have almost no work done. --Panic (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)