Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 1

Brace Style
An important problem is how to have NPOV in the indent styles of examples. -- Paddu


 * Present all the styles and "let the reader decide"... at least that is my idea. -- Emperorbma 19:59, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I didn't quite get that. Obviously each example cannot be presented in all styles. So we should present one particular example in all styles & the rest all in the same style as a `convention we'll adopt in this book' (which may itself be controversial). But then the example must be comprehensive enough (to include, e.g. cuddling of else, do-while, etc.). Then what about the examples which are presented before this comprehensive example? -- Paddu 07:37, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Separate Chapters
y not split the content into different chapters? --Yacht (talk)Q 02:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Follow the link to "your first program". I have been making separate chapters. I am just reluctant to make N different pages now itself (them each would be with nothing more than a few lines). Once each chapter is sort of complete, content from here would be moved there and a link added here. -- Paddu 06:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Broad overview ?
Sorry to ask, but do you think you have here a broad overview of C++, like the first chapter in Kernighan & Ritchie ?

Now the same subjects would have to be expanded in specialized chapters, right ?

Hgfernan 12 May 2004

Images...
I've uploaded some pics .png .jpg and .gif can't seem to make them work is it problems with size optimization ?

upload reports all ok... strange any info ? --Panic 00:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * On downloading the images you uploaded, I'm not able to open them with any viewer I have. My guess is that they are corrupt or are in a non-standard image format (in spite of standard extensions). -- Paddu 20:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * humm it seems that I have problems then with the upload on wikibooks... can I use another place as a reference and you or other editor will then correct it and use wikibooks as a repository ? how do I refer to an offsite image? can it be done ? give me an example if it can... txs --Panic 01:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If wikibooks hasn't disabled the option (wikipedia has, to minimize vandalism), mentioning an external URL ending in a recognised image extension causes that image to be included. But your images are corrupted. No viewer I used were able to open them. BTW in case you're reading this, please read your talk page and the section above for Dysprosia's and my responses. -- Paddu 09:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup, they are corrupted after uploading (here they are ok), I see that Dysprosia agrees with you so I will take the time to give again in an ordered way my arguments (this is time lost on editing BTW but I'll do it for a clarification if ideas and future base of discussion :)... --Panic 04:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This image was transcluded here.


 * Oky it works Paddu Ill start using this and if you can make them local that would be great... txs Paddu --Panic 03:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge Table on Contents
Talk:Programming:C plus plus/Table of contents -- Join the discussion and planning for the new table of contents. MShonle 21:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

An older version of this page has been forked at Talk:Programming: C -/- -/- and hence this page might not have some of the comments made later in that page. Please see Staff lounge. As is the case with Programming:C plus plus, direct your comments to User:Panic2k4's fork at Talk:Programming: C -/- -/-. This page is only of historic significance. Also, please don't try to add comments made on this page to Talk:Programming: C -/- -/- as the folks at the fork talk page are strictly against bringing matters relating to Programming:C plus plus or its talk page (i.e. this page) to the fork location. The status as described above may or may not change. -- Paddu 14:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Common Programming Errors
Moved to Talk:Programming:C plus plus Hello world.

Images...
Moved to Talk:Programming:C plus plus/archive1, though not old talk, to keep the page small.

Conventions
If you want to propose C++-specific conventions that could be adopted by this book, you can do that at Talk:Programming:C plus plus/proposals. If your conventions are general programming-related, you can also add those to Talk:Computer programming or Wikibooks Talk:Manual of Style. -- Paddu 19:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Common Programming Errors Proposal -- dead?
Paddu said " ", porposed to look into Infoboxes
 * NOTE : Dysprosia aggreed but proposed a dif. book ( Programming:Improving programming skills ), didn't start one and doesn't seem to be a "major" contributor to CPP and never replied if she missundestod the proposal.
 * Paddu did not advance the ideia further.

P1 - Last action -> 17 Oct 2004
 * Panic implemented a limited reference note on possible errors/styles.


 * There are now some limited references on errors/styles so the proposal is dead (will add this to the conventions and remove proposal as adopted, I do think that it can be improved maybe Paddu takes on the ideia again) -- Panic2k4 (signature added by Paddu)


 * This is one of the statements that made me furious. How could you call the proposal dead? I sure am going to use templates to implement what are implemented by "specially highlighted & boxed paragraphs" in dead-tree books, unless stopped by death/insanity/any other incident severe enough to stop my ability to edit wikibooks. -- Paddu 15:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Brace Style -- dead?
Paddu said " ", did advance the ideia of a convention on the subject but did not implement one. P2 - Last action -> 17 Dec 2003'''
 * NOTE : Emperorbma did not agree that there was a problem and did't seem to care if there were a convention.
 * Panic agrees with Emperorbma that no particular style should be forced on all the book, started a chapter on it so readers can get it.


 * Note that Panic created a misleading link to User:Paddu titled Emperorbma. These kinds of goof-ups point to a clueless newbie overenthusiastic about refactoring the page. Even though Panic is around for some time, he has accepted that he doesn't want to explore this & related wikis much, which means he'd be a newbie for quite some time. -- Paddu 15:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is now a non adoption of a single standard on styles so the proposal is dead (will add this to the conventions and remove proposal as adopted (as a negative), I do think that in this ways it's makes the works of importing any other snips of code easier. -- Panic2k4 (signature added by Paddu)


 * You seem to suggest that I said that a single style should not be used in the entire book. I didn't say that. Importing works is always easy. They could always be in a different style, but over time someone should make all examples use the same style. If you don't like to do that, don't worry. I do like to do such "drab" work. -- Paddu 15:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Separate Chapters -- Modules?
Yacht requested different chapters (not modules but may have intended to). P3 - Last action -> 22 Feb 2004
 * NOTE : Paddu refered it to a chapter (not a module) refering that he would move chapters to modules as they were finished.
 * There are now different and separate chapters, so the proposal is dead (will add this to the conventions and remove proposal as adopted) -- Panic2k4 (signature added by Paddu)


 * Of course he/she referred to having separate modules. If your sense of chapters (like :functions", "classes", "pointers", "STL", etc.) were to be used, there were already many such thingies when Yann made that comment. -- Paddu 20:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adds & Community building
I've started posting some adds on the newsgroups and as an addon to my signature in many places, it seemed to work as for the new number of contributors I'll try to contact some other sources if you find a guide faq etc try sending the autor a email maybe he would like to port it over here or contributing... --Panic 02:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You mean advertisements? -- Paddu 19:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Images...
Panic had a problem in including pics .png .jpg and .gif to the book, it must be problems with wikibooks upload function, Paddu pointed out that direct references to a WEB resource that ends with any of the supported formats would work... IT DOES -- Panic2k4 (signature added by Paddu)

Rearranged discussion "area"
The above three sections enclosed within horizontal rules is User:Panic2k4's interpretation of the previous discussion. I'm opposed to his/her refactoring at least because:
 * 1) I was misquoted at least once &mdash; Panic's interpretation is that I asked someone to be nice, though I'd just said that doing something would be nice.
 * Geezz Paddu just correct them, people do make errors, English is not my natural language, and try to not spend my time taking things that seriously... (probably the mess this was, if anyone changes your lines you wouldn't notice it :)
 * Nope! One is not supposed to edit another's comments. If it was just a spelling mistake it'd've been ok, but the reformatted para. seemed to imply something I didn't said, so I became angry. Sorry for that. -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The interpretation makes at least one false claim &mdash; It's false that I didn't implement the highlighting I proposed. All the pages that I edited (except those in which I added navigation links) follow the convention I proposed.
 * Didn't see any and I didn't contribute to any modules only to "the book" (modules have seperate discussion "boxes" (hint) ) was this miss plassed here ?
 * Book != module. That's just your POV you are trying to impose around here. No one else seems to agree. -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) It calls proposals without any opposition as dead.

I didn't check for more errors as I don't have much time. Besides, even then I wouldn't be correcting them as IMHO they form a comment Panic has posted and I


 * Apparently Panic doesn't bother about others editing his comments for spelling/grammatical errors, but this couldn't have been assumed by me. Also, editing others comments is "The Bad Thing (TM)" even if they allow it. It's equivalent to attempting to misrepresent someone else's opinion. -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

believe I shouldn't edit his/her comment. Presenting the original is an easy way to make clear what each person said.


 * Humm the originals are still there only commented out so to reduce the mess (I reverted it again), and missquoted are is not the same as edited, it's easier to


 * Yeah, you replaced again with your "mess". C'mon not everyone defines "mess" the same way. -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * prioritize stuff as I have arranged it, please try to give it a chance, as for the dead proposals as adopted, heck if a house is pink I say it's pink I dind't select the color...


 * As for the live proposals as discarded, "heck if a whatever whatever color...". -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please state what proposals you wish still to debate (if you still consider that for example the highlights are open, you should consider helping on heerr highlighting stuff :)


 * I can't edit articles more than 50kB. I'm not that . -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * lol at this point in time I don't think it's a great idea if that would have been settled before no time would be have to be lost on this


 * OK, so you think about 90% of the job is done. Good for me, I can peacefully do my work once you leave after the 10% is completed. The book I'm writing would take at least 10 man-years to come to the four-green-boxes stage, after which it'll still keep getting modified to match the latest C++ standards of that time. BTW I don't expect everyone to follow those conventions. Just that if no one does, I'll do that taking my own sweet time. -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (humm btw for example "In My First C++ ..." I didn't seem to notice any nor in the other modules I've seen...)


 * Lol. -- Paddu 22:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It can be done when all sections are filled and a full revision starts, but now it's a bit late on the game

And BTW Panic, Dysprosia is a "she" not a "he". -- Paddu 13:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Lol I'll correct that one :)--Panic 02:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not funny that someone belongs to some group. Laughing at such a fact might be construed as deriding that group. Just a piece of advice. -- Paddu 19:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relevant talk from User talk:Panic2k4
moved from my talk page as this is relevant to this topic... (there = here)


 * Stop "vandalising" Talk:Programming:C plus plus with your own ideas


 * What you said there: "If you are an active contributor / engaged on any of the proposals

you are free to edit this section" is not the wiki way. Everyone is free to edit any section. Stop adding this kind of nonsense. Thanks! -- Paddu 05:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm vandalising anything My First Contribution-as it is now... (you can always ask for moderation if you have your mind set into it).


 * I was talking about Talk:Programming:C plus plus, i.e. this page and not Programming:C plus plus. BTW "vandalising" was in quotes, i.e. not to be taken literally. -- Paddu 22:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm just asking for your opinion on some proposals (and some were already "adopted" by contributors or just ignored) and take your point or of any other "major" contributor into account, the ideia is to make contributors in general happy... geezz


 * You weren't asking for opinions. You were just branding some proposals as dead and as for some others, you weren't ready to accept anything others say. It might just be that you are not used to this wiki, but then you should try to find out what others do here & how they do it. -- Paddu 22:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the warped ideia you have on the humm wiki way... wiki pages may have passwords and other "protections",


 * Protected "wikis" aren't wikis. They might use wiki software, but they aren't wikis.


 * I didn't and can't prevent any non humm "major" contributor from editing the section, it's just a request and I do think it's a logical one so to keep some order on it...


 * OK, so quit this wiki now. This's just a request. How do you like that one? Especially newbies would be discouraged from sharing their ideas this way. -- Paddu 22:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * geeezz you are to litral for me, first you wrongly accused me of vandalizing and them make me spend this time debating a self evident point don't be so single minded (almost anal) on the subjects,


 * Who's anal? -- Paddu 22:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * take the time to think on what/how you did/react and how I could have gone about it, I think I've been contributing so don't call me a vandal ... txs


 * PS: I'm a "he" :) --Panic 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

reference links
I see a bunch of useful-looking C++ reference links at User:Paddu http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Paddu . Should I copy them to this book in the "Reference Sites" section ? -- DavidCary 20:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You can and should add anything useful and on topic to the appropriate section if none exist add one but stay on the topic. --Panic 01:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I added those to my user page long ago when I was new to wikibooks and didn't want to dump stuff in articles without learning how things go on here. They can be added here if found relevant. -- Paddu 22:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reversion of the work and related pages
I saw a reversion done by Dysprosia, no great problem there, but with it other changes were lost, so I propose reversions in accord to the use/warnings wikibooks places on them should only be done by people doing hard contribution (I call them major contributors) or by any other user in cases of vandalization if no loss of content occurs if so it should be edited out not reverted, if anyone has some problems please use this discussion area or read what is written in this discussion area (the why and how should always be found here so others can see it...) --Panic 19:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Dysprosia 05:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Paddu :) ...
Ok from easy to locate it's now restored to almost as it was (a total mess)... correct any errors and reduce the small talk on the quotes make them to the point and relevant, as it is it's worst... note the time I don't know if you are finished... next time don't use my talk use this discussion is to talk on the C++ topic it makes me lose time going after what you have edited there (personal is fine but most of what you wrote there should be in here... (Ill check back in 3-4 hours to seem what/if it is done) --Panic 22:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I talked about you in your talk page. -- Paddu 22:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nothing is a mess. The talk about this page is in Talk:Programming:C plus plus/single page and the talk about (y)our cluelessness is here. C'mon. There are pages in this wiki apart from Programming:C plus plus and Talk:Programming:C plus plus. -- Paddu 22:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This particular thread must be in my talk page, as it is about me and not C++.


 * OK, here's an NPOV description. All the "active debates" are here and the inactive ones at Talk:Programming:C plus plus/archive1. Since the single page debate has become very large, it is at Talk:Programming:C plus plus/single page. If you feel any of these debates is no longer relevant, feel free to add the entire debate to the end of Talk:Programming:C plus plus/archive1 and delete that from here. -- Paddu 22:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I wanted to make one last edit removing the strange highlights & indentations that you have for P1, P2, etc. (both here and at Talk:Programming:C plus plus/single page). But it's 4:11 am here, so I'll go to bed. So I've "finished" and you can start your revert spree, but remember that if we both keep reverting each other, the page would be protected so we both can't edit. I'd actually like that option, since that'd bring more wikibookians into the picture and help sort out the debate. -- Paddu 22:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oky Paddu you win I cant spend the time arguing with you and contributing, I have forked the work to a new location... you can now "modulize" or revert :) as you wish... --Panic 02:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you've forked, that implies I didn't win. I was never in favour of forking. You're still writing long pages difficult to edit. You could've continued your work in Programming:C plus plus as I wasn't touching it anyway. I was only bothered about the talk page refactoring. -- Paddu 06:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Forking is completely undesirable and does absolutely nothing to aid in a resolution to the problems that are here. Wikipedia doesn't fork articles, neither should we. I suggest we move all versions, forked or otherwise, elsewhere, and start over, with structure in mind. Dysprosia 05:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is one ugly cover image.
Really, it's not that readable and it has no border or mesh... heck it doesnt even make sense. Lightning + Brick-Wall Letters + Red/Yellow Letters + Weird Curve in the Background

Does this article really warrant a hard to read image that in no way meshes with the rest of the site?

Well, since I'm the author of the image, and you seem at least to have taken some time to comment on it, I can give you some creative points on how to interpret it:

Lighting = Power Brick-Wall = Objects / Modular Concept

Red/Yellow letters is known to be a binary color mix to provide an eye catching point to the image, so to keep you on the point and try to make you read the title :)

As for the "weird curve", heck, you can see it as the non static nature of the language...

The point is not if the book (not article) needs a cover image but that someone (in this case I) took the time to create one and removing data or information from a work will not improve it, unless it is wrong or a better content can replace it (you are free to create another one).

As for the "meshing" of the picture with the rest of the site it's in-relevant, dif. users use dif. skins/layouts and the book is a closed work in itself there isn't a common link on books as in articles in lets say Wikipedia, where the flow of designs can have some relevance...

--Panic 01:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I DO disagree with the merge...
''All resolution discussions seem to have broken down so I am taking drastic action to enforce Wikibooks:Forking policy. I have moved Programming: C -/- -/- to Programming:C plus plus/Temp, please merge any and ALL information there into this book's hierarchy. Remember wiki is not paper, a single 223 KB page is absolutely inexcusable.''

If you disagree please use this page's talk page and I will do my best to address the issue.


 * The referred policy took form after the fork.


 * Moderation was requested (but not provided) by the two users involved before I did decided on the fork that fallowed the Wikipedia policy (the active one at the time).

Forking can harm Wikibooks in that it divides the community effort into producing a Wikibook,

I did take every factor into account before forking the work, you should have noted the contributors activity on both works before doing anything, even the size of the works. C -/- -/- did have more content that the original C Plus Plus work, and since wikibooks names lose relevance on this discussion because of the + sign a more "neutral" name should be used like CPP or any other variation in any case.

''a warning to the forker of the book, authors of the original, and notices to both the talk pages will be made. Both parties should endeavour to merge the fork back to the original. ''


 * I was not informed about the merge or requested to do so by a moderator/administrator...

''where this fails, either by one or both parties actively disagreeing to reunify the books, or after two weeks, a notice that the fork will be deleted in two weeks will be placed on the fork page. If this time period expires and the forker of the book requests this deleted content available, administrators should readily endeavour to do so.''


 * No notice was posted, and I DO request that the content be restored...

The creation of multiple Wikibooks on the same topic is permitted in circumstances of... -appeal to differing audiences -differing approaches


 * the fork was done not only but also because these points were not met on the original work, and no compromise could be reached with the previous contributor, reversions started to occur even if the person reverting it was not actively contributing at the time. (this is not a personal attack but one of the many motivations that lead to the fork)

I do request that the work be restored (and) or if a merge is needed (a significant part of C Plus Plus was already on C -/- -/-) the person/moderator/administrator should merge the smalled work into the bigger one, I do acknowledge the need for a policy for forks and "we" did try to prevent it from opening (both users involved tried to come to terms and it was proven impossible at that time). Even if the policy can be enforced on site, I will move the content to another service if this merge is taken forward. ( I have invested some time working on the book and asking for others to contribute to it, to see it be lost on political/personal moves, I'm sorry, but I do not have the time to be involved on discussions (not related to the actual content) and on the creation of the book at the same time.

--Panic 03:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, a reply at last. I was not aware that the policy had spawned due to this (had I been I would have treaded more carefully in its application) but it doesn't alter my use of it. I'm sorry to say I forgot to inform the contributors about my merge "ultimatum", I was fully intending to.

Due to the general inactivity on both books (at the time) I decided to take the merge to task myself on any word-for-word sections (using see also links to the "other version"), but due to a lack of free time and no knowledge of the subject I ended up only doing the intro blurb (and maybe one or two other things).

The hierarchy of the C plus plus book is somewhat flawed and probably confusing, but the single page also has its flaws in that it often stops downloading half-way through, even on my (pseudo-)broadband connection. This is very bad for the reader, as if it stops at the end of a sentence they may not even realise it's not the end of the page (not all browsers report stoppings).

Now I am only interested in the method of providing the content, rather than the content itself; I'm not saying the one book is "better" than the other, just that it is really confusing to the average reader to have two separate but "identical" books.

I couldn't easily tell which work was bigger (since plus plus has numerous subpages) so I merely chose to merge into the "plus plus" as it is the more acceptable alternate naming convention due to avoiding the slash (which is reserved for parent and child directory functions and other complex MediaWiki 1.5 and 1.5+ features). It wasn't me favouring the content, just the page name and separate-pages structure (again, massive KB causes problems).

I'm not trying to strongarm anyone or drive anyone away, but there needs to be some active work at resolving the problem and turning the two into one.

Having two ostensibly "identical" books is confusing for the reader--some sections in one book, some in another--and inherently counterproductive for contributors--a small section gets updated on the one and updated differently on the other by two different people leading to two different explanations--leading to a fair amount of overlap and redundancy

I hope you can work on the resolution some more, as I really don't have the knowledge of the topic to fathom any of the audience differences etc. that these two may or may not have.

Anyway, I've rambled, so, I hope that answers everything. :) If not, ask away. I just want this resolved as quickly and easily as possible so actual work can be done on a united book, rather than the arguing and reverting of the past. GarrettTalk 05:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I do comprehend your job on keeping things tight and clean but it bothers me and probably every contributor to the books in question that it took so much time to the problem to get moderated ...

The problem is that, as I tell you above, there is no need for moderation at this point as the new book falls into the rules as a valid fork. Paddu the last active editor before I took to the task, did have a different approach (and for a particular audience) that lead to a different structure.

I do understand that you may not know the particular topics of the books in question but even if you intended just for a speedy solution you could have and probably should have taken the time to examine the works in question.

I and for what I did understand Paddu agreed that the works, that talk about the same "topic", do complement each-other but they do not address the same problems or are intended to the same audience.

Paddu selected the beginner approach to the problem of explaining the "topic". I for one decided that the "topic" was so vast that a point by point explanation was valid and needed (I have even started other books because of it). Paddu (and the ones before him) intended or were headed to a on "topic" only book....

I do think in the terms of:
 * I need to drive a car, I should know what roads are, whats inside the engine, how it works and why or even how many brands/types of tires can I get, etc...

The previous approach was more like an introduction and a FAQ with an area for a kind'a'forum for users to solve questions (that part was inactive and did not reported any real activity...), heck, just check the it's status before any of my contributions...

If you need more details please take a look at the books and you can google Panic2k4 or Paddu to see any reference and cache of pages related to the problems that lead to the fork in detail, if they aren't available on wikibooks cache. You should/can also see what pages (and how many links) each page has but again that is a system problem (in this case the NET) not a content one, the book is valid no mater how many times or how it gets "addressed"...

Again, I request that you put the books as they were before you started the "merge" or as C Plus Plus was a lot smaller and if no one objects to it using C -/- -/- as the template and active work (as I said part of C Plus Plus is already on C -/- -/-) if that solution doesn't agree with wikibooks naming "system", and for a common ground or just for a quick fix, I don't mind you rename C -/- -/- as CPP (for me that point in irrelevant as it's a system limitation we can't use "+" not a content (book) related problem, "you" should fix the system so the proper name could be used) the idea behind the weird name was to permit the evolution of the book having in mind a later "merge" or central page to select one of the books, for example you could centralize all C++ "topic" books on a CPP page...

About the monolithic structure, if you had/do read the talk you could/can see that actions were taken to resolve that problem, but a monolithic display would be preserved (Its easier to print out for once and to develop a logical structure or just to see were work needs to be done without having to navigate obscure links, again this is a problem with the system not the content), a framework or a per topic approach can and would be available to readers as the work matures and then (using topics) a "merge" could be made to C Plus Plus (or the relevant parts of it, as the intended audience and approaches aren't the same and so they can't really merge as a single book.

I'll have to note that the tipping point that lead to a fork was the start of a revert war without moderation, that was actively requested from both parts, any later merge requests did came from Paddu (as he was had stopped contributing to the work) but at that time I was more interested in providing order and content than on spending time debating every structure or changes that lead to a different book as Paddu pointed out at the time, so, as I already stated the late and now the new fork policy do apply.

And so, again I request that you put things as you found them and take the time to examine the problem or another angle that would permit me and other contributors to continue to do productive work.

You could check the contributions of users to both works and the contributors them selfs as you decide what to do or what approach to fallow, but if you don't have a real solution do not complicate the problem, if the situation was "confusing" now it's a nightmare... --Panic 07:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, that's strange, I thought I'd done that already... timeouts again? Well, I've reverted it all for sure this time. :)
 * At the time I thought it a legitimate enough solution, and I certainly didn't try to do a quick job of it as I knew that could easily result in lost content. As it was I gave up due to the complexity of both projects and the lack of overlap.
 * At the time there hadn't been changes to any of the pages in roughly a month, and the solution had died long ago, so I decided I might as well help things along in the absence of others.
 * Don't worry about renaming at the moment. The -/- was just a minor niggle because at some vague point in the future the slash might generate redlinks to fill up the proposed auto-TOC feature. You see, I couldn't easily tell which book was bigger as plus plus had so many subpages to check over, so I decided the fork should go into the (better-named) original module, which it was probably largely a mirror of anyway. As it is I was quite mistaken.
 * But enough of that, I've just thought of a different solution for these somewhat incongruous projects working together... you could have your content as in-depth examination of his overview. So at the end of each brief section it would say "read more on XYZ", and would link to a further in-depth section about it on a subpage of that page named "/Further Info" (or another wording/naming convention). Complete with precise section linking where applicable to go straight to the info.
 * That way there is no need of compromise as no content is lost or conflicting; users wanting a refresher or summary could just read the basic info, and those wanting more could click through to the examples after reading the short equivalent. There would also be a "full details Table of Contents", a mirror of the main TOC but with direct links to each of your writeups.
 * AND this would put both books under the same hierarchy, so the reader only sees a single volume on the topic.
 * As for the single-page approach, I had already found a solution... didn't I already mention that somewhere? Anyway, I've just made an example of it in use at User:Garrett/Temp. That way you can have little pages to navigate around easily and quickly, but the gargantuan page is there if you want it--and is always up-to-date. The only problem is that any new pages need to be added to there as well as to the TOC to ensure it's always complete.
 * Anway, see what you think of that. :) GarrettTalk 11:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)