Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 3

Having all material in a book in a single page
Can't the reference tables be moved to the main page into the related part of the doc and use anchors to refer to them ?

This does have something to have with previous discussions about removing part of the work to other pages but as this is not an independent topic (it relates to misc. parts of the main topic) -- Panic


 * It's infeasible to have an entire book in a single wiki page. It may be OK for some people to read that (there do exist a lot of e-books available in "one-big HTML" format), but editing such a page would be difficult. Yeah, we have section editing and all that, but still it is a pain. After submiting it, you've to wait for the whole book to load again. Which reminds me... What about people trying to learn about just one language feature. Do you want them to wait for the entire book to load? That's why pages in the context of wikibooks are called "modules", not "books". Depending on the size of the book, each "module" may be a separate chapter or section or sub-section or anything.


 * If you want all chapters in one big HTML, it should be possible to create a page like this:


 * but the navigational links I've added to some of the chapters won't point within the page but to the page for individual chapters. But that should be the least of our problems. The real problem is that the servers would slow down. -- Paddu 20:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * A single page from my point of view is the best trade off, for the user and the writer, as stated above any contributor would find more easily were he can be most useful and avoid repeating already contributed information, as a reader I do really hate wiki because of the limitations it gives to export to a non wiki env. like to get a copy of the work as a PDF. -- Panic


 * What was dicussed before was not trying to include all C++-related topics into this book but to deal with only one topic &mdash; C++. The other topics must be in different books. Of course there should be a link to those books here and a link to this one in those, but each chapter in those other books should not be mentioned in the table of contents of this book. -- Paddu


 * Agree, but the "topics" can be easily moved later if found to be extensible enough to be a stand alone book, moving empty topics will only fragment the user/contributor base... -- Panic

and there isn't a wiki "extractor" (does it?) that would facilitate getting a copy of all the work I do think that it should be avoided and only use external pages to start independent "books" (works with private topics), I have also tried to find an offline editor (that isn't a Emacs or Unix solution...), does anyone know about one ? -- Panic


 * Probably you are looking for Special:Export?


 * Nope, something like a OpenOffice plugin something on those lines... I dont want to install a server and wiki on my comp to be able to edit offline :)... -- Panic

... and still on forking the work into multiple books. First lets have a working "book" and then we'll trim it out, using s streamline structure without references to multiple subpages will help to desegregate other topics, hec... even STL, that is part of the standard should have a separated book only for it, but lets try to just keep it on topic and with a simple and logic structure, then we can see if it is worth to fork it for the moment all content (on topic) will help to bring contributions ... -- Panic


 * It's difficult to have a working "book" without structure, with just random stuff about every C++-related topic thrown about. Talking of forks, splitting a program into a lot many source files is not equivalent to creating forks. Forks in wikibooks would be having two different wikibooks on the same subject. Is there any other book on C++ here? -- Paddu 20:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I should have used thread of subject and not fork (topic would also be wrong as a topic can be linked to a external subject), but I've seen your changes to the "Guide to Writers" but is there a way to list all "modules" on a single page so anyone can get a easy copy of the book (for printing or just to avoid repeating info or just to link to the relevant areas ? ) if not dividing the work into multiple modules is not a good idea it will only hide information and segment the readers reducing the writers as they will only see blocks of the work and probably if a users comes to the book as a reader the probability that he will contribute to a section he wants to read about is less that to a part he already knows, in modules only people that already have some degree of knowledge on the subject would contribute and I really doubt that this would result on more work being done, to do spell checking I don't need to know C++ (for example)... -- Panic


 * The intent is to make the readers aware that they can edit any page, not just what they are reading. With Wikipedia, the average newcomer is tempted to read more & more pages following various internal links, and hence can easily arrive at something known and start contributing to that article. In wikibooks, the no. of links is low and this may be a problem. But IMHO the reader can easily guess that there is more than one module to a book and search for other modules in a book.


 * As far as coverage of new subjects is concerned, the idea probably was to list the books expected to be written in a bookshelf, and a visitor to the bookshelf can easily find what subjects he could contribute to. This approach would not work if bookshelves are (e.g.) given lower Google ranking than to a particular book. In such a case most visitors would only visit that book and might not be able to guess that they are free to contribute to any of the other books listed in the bookshelf.


 * I can't think of a solution to the problem other than what I've mentioned, namely have a huge page that instantiates each page of the wikibook as a template (did you know you could insert the contents of any page into any other page using templates?). It is possible to also have an edit link to individual pages, so any reader could be lured into adding content for any of the modules. But the real problem is that having large pages both irritates the reader and stresses the servers. I think we could get a better solution if we ask this in the Staff lounge, which has a greater visibility.


 * BTW, please sign your comments with a  ~ . It's difficult to find which comments are by whom. I'm having a tough time taking our discussion to the Staff lounge. -- Paddu 14:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Done -- Panic


 * As it turned out, all the anonymous comments were by the same person, and I didn't have time to take this discussion to the lounge. Will do so today. BTW our conversation is quite large and I've decided to give a brief description and link to this page instead of copying the entire conversation there. -- Paddu 07:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How about an infobox in each module of a book, which includes some text like:


 * -- Paddu


 * That is a great idea, but not to empty books (that is really very frustrating), btw keep those wiki wiki codes coming it's helping my learning curve :) -- Panic


 * That way you may not learn much. Read the help pages here and in meta to learn more. I believe you can get a better idea about Mediawiki and the way we work in Wikimedia projects by perusing the pages in Wikipedia in the Wikipedia: namespace. Not all those pages have been ported to Wikibooks.


 * Since you seem to have arrived at Wikibooks without first having been to the 'pedia (please confirm this), you might be able to give a better insight into how wikibooks must be different from wikipedia. IMHO red links are not frustrating, but rather an invitation to contribute. A wikibooks reader oblivious of wikipedia might think differently. BTW you could change the way broken links show up by changing your Preferences. -- Paddu 07:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Er... That's not an infobox, that's more of a navigational template. -- Paddu 07:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my 2c. A book has a lot of largish chapters - let's emulate this. Having everything on one page disadvantages the reader in having things referenced, it's easy to bookmark a module page to a certain section, but it's not if everything's on one page, since one has to look through that to find something. Not to mention it's more difficult on dialup connections. It also allows one to structure the material and have different people working on different things without loss of apparent continuity in the text. Speaking of forks, I am strongly against this. If we have any chance of making something decent here we need to pool our resources and create something unified. Dysprosia 21:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Panic said" " and " " and " " and " "

Still working on it

P6 - Last action -> Very active :) -- Panic2k4 (signature added by Paddu)

Here is a possible solution: Either way, the text needs to be split up into different sections. How about splitting up this page into chapters and having more lecture style material more suited for a Wikiversity type course which can be a bit more freeform as Panic seems to be more comfortable with? (Though you will need to break it up into a set of lectures regardless, and most importantly keep it structured).

HTH Dysprosia 10:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Lol, sorry about the "he" Dysprosia you are part of a minority so I did take it for granted, I've been corrected and switched any wrong gender references :) (Hope it alright now...)


 * I'll elaborate it more here and them move relevant parts to the "proposals section", I understand that you are referring to modules (separated pages) as chapters and sections... as for the order or structure I do think it's taking shape but stuff needs from time to time to be moved around just to make sense (we can't talk about classes before going into what OOP brings to C++ etc...), as for the fixed idea Paddu has with modules, I'm not against it nor mind set into a huge page but to make it a logical work. If we have multiple pages and with it discussion pages etc... it makes it a very difficult job on making a good work just take a look on the wiki bib. (on the previous modules) they go all over the place, I think that the problem is that people tend to look at this wiki book as an extension of wikipedia and this is separated work that must stand by itself if we fragment it it stops being a book. I'm taking the road set by P3 "move chapters to modules as they were finished" (they aren't)


 * Nope, I didn't mean that. What I meant was (a clearer/vaguer explanation is in your talk page) that once an individual "submodule" nears completion, stuff from the main module would be added to the "submodule". -- Paddu 22:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and see if the solution Paddu indicated will work (transclusion, I think its a great option), still waiting for him to give me a working example


 * I've given in your talk page. You didn't bother to see. And even otherwise, I'm not the one who wrote the transclusion code in MediaWiki. There are many here who know about it. If only you convince yourself to explore the wiki... -- Paddu 22:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

but that would solve the problem of extracting all content to let's say a .TXT file and make it easier to coordinate edits (stop the duplication) and keep the ease of editing (if you go into the history you can easily see that people edit and contribute to different "chapters" that would be made impossible if using modules at this stage... ufff I think it's all, combined with I and others have


 * Hey, there do exist people contributing to different "submodules". -- Paddu 22:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

said before, will this close the subject ?!? (until we have a complete "chapter") --Panic 02:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the starting the merge
It seems like the discussion here has died down, and we agree on most things that we need to agree on to do the actual merge. So here's another proposition:


 * We'll take the TOC as it is presented here, and merge / move the contents to the appropriate chapters.
 * We will use this page for coordination (write your name next to the chapter(s) you're working on)
 * we'll start as soon as everyone involved in the heated discussion (panic, mshonle) agrees.

How it would work:
 * Sign in on this page
 * Create a page with the content your working on
 * modify the main toc
 * sign out on this page

--Max 19:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your answer (either: "ok", "no, wait a little longer, there are still some open issues", or "no, this is a bad idea"). If you voted no, please explain.

What was proposed so far was already being done (not exacly equal but with the same general idea, only at C -/- -/-, you can check the last talks on C Plus Plus with another admin (the commenst marked as mine, before that one can be out of context since Paddu edited and moved stuff arround and I didn't check it out), untill C -/- -/- is moved for deletion, I will, edit it. I will only contribute actively to C Plus Plus after the other work is closed for edit, and after subject of the so called fork is resolved.--Panic 21:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ok --Max 19:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * no, wait a little longer, there are still some open issues, the C -/- -/- will have to be processed (marked for deletion) at that time some other users may have 1) a better solution 2)can vote to prevent deletion.

So to talk dates: --Max 21:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * C -/- -/- is supposed to be deleted on sept 21
 * the contents will still be available for two weeks after that
 * the merge will then start on sept 21?

I think that it's the best option, since any action can reverted if contested or by any administrator, remember that Paddu didn't as yet provide his view on this matter--Panic 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a note. There will be no "marked for deletion" process or any voting. This is the process for the book. I've considered locking the contents of the C -/- -/- book, but I didn't think there was much need to do so. (If there is some need we can still do that, though.) But no other event should be bound to the Sept 21st date, we don't need to wait until then to start the merge. In other words, Max, start at it! MShonle 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Humm, the 2nd point of the rule you are wrongly apllying to the C -/- -/-, is baddly written.
 * 2. 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 endeavor to do so. However, if the forker replaces this content in the Wikibooks main name space, it becomes a candidate for speedy deletion.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Forking_policy"
 * In any case please give some lights on what to do with the talk pages that will overlap and I remember seeing some "comment" about not using redirects but something else, can you give some pointers ?
 * [A lot of the material on the talk pages are old and should be archived anyway. Giving the C++ book's talk page a fresh start (still linking to the archives, of course) might give it a good kick toward getting more contributions. MShonle 02:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)]
 * Have you also lifter the move protection of C -/- -/- to keep the history of the edits ?
 * [List any pages you would like moved to the Programming:C_plus_plus/* space and I will do the move for you. MShonle 02:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)]

I am confused. Panik: You say wait. MShonle: You say start. I do not think it makes sense to start merging before the -/- -/- is locked (to be safe). So if we have to wait for the 21st to conform with the rules we will do that. I think locking it on the 21st and making it avaiable for at least two weeks after that (or if we merged it before, that would work). --Max 05:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If Panic agrees to have it locked now I can lock it now. If he disagrees we'll wait until the 21st and then lock it. We'll also put a notice on each locked page explaining the situation. MShonle 02:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've started doing some of the moves (some pages are still protected) and some content is still inside the monolithic page... remember that if you move any content to redirect it so it doesn't become lost or missing, the missing part will be resolved as soon as C -/- -/- is deleted there is another problem I'll add a reference to Programming:Java and Programming in C -/- -/- to the list of works we are using contents as even if the last is deleted at wikibooks there are now copies on the wild...--01:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Charter
This book is an introduction to programming concepts using C++. The book covers the essential features of the language and its standard library. It also provides a survey of important concepts, like the STL, software design, and design patterns, but only as a stepping stone for the reader to learn more from other books. The book does not cover non-standard C++ libraries, some of the more advanced or esoteric concepts, nor general computer science data-structures and algorithm techniques (although recursion and other basic concepts should be covered). The book is not intended to be a complete reference to the C++ language. This book would be appropriate for a first course in programming or computer science.

Contents
This is a tentative Table of contents. Feel free to modify it if needed, but always add a short paragraph saying what you did and why. If you remove larger sections, please copy the removed section into your paragraph.

-

Part 0: About this book
 * 1) Foreword
 * 2) About a wikibook (your rights and all that, should ideally come from a wikibook template)
 * 3) Authors

Part I: Introdution to C++ and Programming
 * What is a programming language?
 * Machine code
 * Assembly
 * High level languages (C++)
 * Very Short intro: 3 concepts: proc, oo, functional, C++ does all
 * What is the compilation / build process, using a sample program. e.g. Hello world.
 * Example of a build process on unix (gcc)
 * Example of a build process on Win32 (Visual studio)
 * Short intro to language features (explain the hello, world)
 * Variables and the concept of memory (use only some basic types, link -> ref. tables for all data types).
 * Constants
 * simple (!) console i/o (link -> explanation later on)
 * assignment / operators. (explain, link -> ref tables)

Part II: Procedural Programming Concepts
 * Program flow: Branching (if, if/else)
 * Logical operators
 * Program Flow: repetition (while)
 * Program Flow: repetition II (do / while)
 * Program Flow: repetition III (for)
 * Multi-way branching (switch)
 * Function basics
 * Scope
 * the main function
 * Advanced Functions (call-by-value vs. call by reference, overloading, default, etc.)
 * Recursion
 * Array basics
 * Advanced arrays (initialization, partially filled, multi-dimensional, etc.)
 * Arrays and functions

Part III: OO-Programming Concepts (This is completely unordered and probably incomplete, All these should appear, but not necessarily in this order)
 * combining of data and control
 * classes
 * constructors
 * destructors
 * inhertance
 * virtual
 * abstract classes
 * pure abstract classes (interfaces) and why they make sense
 * visibility
 * see list in c -/- -/- for this missing here

Part IV: C++ Language Features
 * The enum data type
 * The struct data type
 * The union data type
 * typecasting
 * namespaces
 * header files and source files / multi-file programming
 * Strings as character arrays (C-strings)
 * Memory management / Pointers / new, new[], delete, delete[]
 * Operator overloading
 * Exceptions
 * Templates
 * Intro into the praeprocessor
 * Hints for the compiler (inline, volatile, etc.)

Part V: Standard C++ Libraries
 * Intro to the STL
 * The String class (C++-Strings)
 * Input and output streams:
 * cin/cout/cerr
 * all those iomanip's
 * text file i/o
 * see list in c -/- -/-

Part VI: C++ in the Real world
 * C++ vs. other languages
 * Common programming styles
 * C++ and varios OS's
 * Win32 (short intro, then link to different section / book ?)
 * Linux / Unix / OS X (explains that there are different GUI things, link -> different section / book ?)
 * Makefiles
 * The problem of GUI programming and why it is not covered here

Part VII: Common Programming idioms in c++
 * Intro to design patterns
 * Procedural Idioms:
 * See list in plus plus
 * OO-Idioms
 * some design patterns

Part VIII: Reference Tables
 * List / Table of Keywords (should link to the explaining chapter)
 * List of Standard Headers
 * Table of praeprocessor commands
 * table of compiler keywords
 * Table of Operators
 * Table of Data Types
 * internal storage of the data types (of floats, size of ints. etc)
 * links to other websites
 * links to commercial books

About the charter
I'd take the charter word-for-word into the foreword --Max 00:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We might also want to consider a charter for the C++ Reference book at the same time, and carefully word it so that it does not conflict with this work. That way, if a couple of months down the road we find someone really wants to contribute material that's way too advanced we can just direct them to the C++ Reference book instead. MShonle 02:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So what is currently "Part VIII: Reference Tables" will be the start of the reference book? --Max 02:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There is some problems with the charter, even if we agree in having a simplified version of the book.

The Programming is already a wikibook, if we continue to use this name space, as stated in the naming proposal, the Programming:C plus plus will not be a stand alone work but a "module" of the other work, as such the authors/refereces and other GFDL needed sections would have to be included on the Programming work not on the module.

A solution is to move the work to the Wikibooks root and use a redirect to a simplified TOC directed as was stated is the intention of MShonle of a basic and introductory "module" of the C++ Programming Language.--Panic 00:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference book

 * I think a good start for the reference book would be a GFDL-compatible syntactic specification (BNF or similar), and then the writing task would be to add the semantics to the rules of the syntax. There would probably need to be a chapter on type conversions and promotions, all of the built in types, the separate-compiling/linking strategy, the implementation of vtables, the precise differences from C, and plus the public interfaces of the standard library (simply including GNU headers in the text, as done for one header in this book, wouldn't be good: too much info in some places, and not enough descriptions in others). It's possible that the GNU libraries already have GFDL references, in which case the job would be to either: (1) link to them; or (2) include them, and elide the GNU-specific features. MShonle 04:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is way beyond something that I'd be interested in. It may be a good thing to have, but we'd need someone to write it. Volunteers? --Max 19:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why limit it only to The book covers the essential features of the language, I think the namespace (or url or location) is wrong for that but a new location like Programming in C++ could include all the C++ related information, and request that if parts of the book are made into stand alone works a copy and urls and short introduction takes its place, but then will it not constitute a fork of the book like this was considered, part of the book was copied even if not addressing the exact same topic or objective. (probably the fork policy should be made more clear as the standard interpretation of what a fork is can be broad.--Panic 01:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, makes sense. Use this as a start, but when / if something gets to big, then it'll get its own book. --Max 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would consider a fork to be any book that would be competing for the same audience as another wikibook (instead of complementing that book) and that would also divide contributors. A C++ reference book is appropriate for Wikibooks. For example, one that talks about each feature of the language, specifies its syntax, provides examples of its use, and describes its semantics. (And it would alreay presume programming langauge knowledge.) I suppose the same could be done for the standard library as well. Both would be enormous undertakings, however. But there is also clearly a need for an introductory textbook that might (or might not) get to covering member-templates, the auto keyword, the modern compiler-ignored register keyword, or what exactly happens when a virtual function is also inline. This book is that introductory book. MShonle 02:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Again it's your interpretation, as "fork" you have to go by the GFDL definition of it, since there is no reference to it all, forks == derivative works, fork can't be realy described by the GFDL since it is a software related term, fork is historical defined only on that field.--Panic 04:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

STL as part of the C++ Standard should not be moved to another book, stuff like BOOST or Win32 -> MFC or even OOP could if a small intro (as I said above, and with that limitations) substitutes and gives indication to the new work location, even better is ignoring creating C++ related sub-books and aggregate all in the same namespace, and so keeping all information reachable and easy to port/access and referencing (this goes beyond the scope of the wikibooks location)...--Panic 01:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good question. But again, I'd say start with the STL here, and if it gets too big move it to a different book --Max 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of details of the standard library that an introductory textbook should elide. It should be a non-goal to cover it all. (That would be the job for a reference, not an introductory tutorial; those who want both can read both books. Those who want just one will actually get it.) MShonle 02:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Were did you get the idea introductory textbook, that was what C plus Plus was aiming to not C -/- -/- and I don't like the limitation as there is no need for it, there is no reason to. is there ? It's all in how it's displayed or organized...(multiple books around the same subject/topic/title have the same problem as forks they fragment the reader base and doing so the possible contributors, in paper since there is a cost factor and other physical limitations, the problem doesn't exist even more because the work becomes static)--Panic 04:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is primarily a textbook project. There is a clear need for introductory texts to C++. That's essentially what this book has aimed to do. The charter just makes explicit what was already intendend. A reference book would be a great complement to this book, though, so there's no problem with us planning them together. MShonle 04:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess the idea of an introductory textbook came from me since this is what I personally need. If we can somehow do both (introductory and advanced) that would be good. If not, we'll have to figure out how to do two different books and still use synergy. --Max 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

''The book is not intended to be a complete reference to the C++ language. This book would be appropriate for a first course in programming or computer science''

As size is not a problem I don't think this limitation should be imposed, it relates also to prev. comments I have made on the same topic.--Panic 01:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe reference material should be in there, but ideally at the end. Same argument as above using this as a plattform to get started. --Max 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

About the page-structure
I would suggest that everything that is a dot here (in the TOC) will be one page. Subitems here are shown for explanation of some topics, they should be subitems on that particular page. --Max 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably a limit by number of lines should be used to divide chapters into subchapters as they grow...--Panic 01:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * as far as i understand (and i have no idea if i'm right on this) the navigation is very limited. And hierachical subpages are discouraged. However, big pages are bad. Here's an alternate suggestion: wikibooks gives me a warning if a page is bigger / close to 32k. Maybe that could be a limit? However, 32k is a lot of text. So, to sum it up: Even though i don't like a rule for splitting up subtopics, I do see that it makes sense technically, so as long as each section can have a good size (at least 10 pages printed) i can live with whatever we agree on. --Max 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We can write more advanced navigation templates. Here's how it'd work: (1) The current modules at Programming:C_plus_plus/Foo would get renamed to Programming:C_plus_plus/Foo_content. (2) A new page, named Programming:C_plus_plus/Foo would be created. (3) That new page, which has the name of the original page, will just do a to transclude it. It will also include this  and the top and or bottom, which would be a navigation template listing all chapters by name or by number (or whatever). Finally, (4) the All Chapters view will transclude the _content pages instead of the pages that now have the navigation. It's all pretty easy to do, but only worth doing when the time is right for it. MShonle 02:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds complicated, but do-able if there is a clear how-to --Max 02:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can do that heavy lifting when needed, and leave it up to you for the NavBar design itself. MShonle 03:46, 15

September 2005 (UTC)
 * One more question: This means the actual page structure has to be maintained in 3 places: Chapter Version, Full Version and Navigation? --Max 04:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please try not to be to abrasive on the added pages untill C -/- -/- is deleted as it now redirects to them here...--Panic 01:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, unless there are any complaints however, I'll start re-organizing the TOC, right now just moving stuff around, and maybe creating pages that haven't existed yet. All pages that came from -/- -/- will not be touched until after deletion --Max 23:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) About a wikibook Development

Max do you think this is needed I think that a simple reference in the foreword would suffice (and that section would only be needed if the book is hosted on wikibooks) if needed a link to the discussion area could be included on the foreword.--Panic 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In my mind I have an image of a printed version of the book that I can make my students get (for $20 instead of $100). A printed version would require at least some comments about this book being open, and that it can be found on wikibooks. So maybe this would be something that is only required in the all-on-one-page version? But then again, it can't hurt to have it in the other version too --Max 16:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

humm, and extending a little more what is in the actual foreword (with links to the related sections) wouldn't suffice? Do we need a dedicated page to, in my POV do a redundant description of what a Wikibook is ?--Panic 21:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not if we have the foreword as it is right now. Then what I mean by "What is a wikibook" is what the foreword is now. However. if we elaborate a little more on both (e.g. put more information into the foreword like: this is a beginners book, how the book is structured, etc.) then this is definitely a different context, and should imo belong on a different page. --Max 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The other idea was that a page like "What is a wikibook" could be re-used across multiple projects for the print versions. --Max 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think all this is nonsense, we can delete the "what is a wikibook" for now and re-add it later if we write an actual foreword --Max 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup I agree with your view but I don't think we have much more to add to what is in there already, we can include your idea and insert references to the wikibook general information and a reference to the site and to the book talk pages in a way we don't overburden it, but, in thinking about stating the charter or even the wording of it as MShonle wrote, it's not the best thing we could do. That idea will limit future contributions stating a narrow evolution path, we can make a reference that if a sub-subject get's to big (we can debate how big it would have to be, and create a Convention) it would be used (my POV, depending on how huge it would be) not as another book (that will have the same problems as a fork) but as an addendum or even a different structure of the main book but on the same namespace (my POV, this will depend on the subject ex: CASE Tools or UML can and would have if developed it's own namespace, but for instance WIN32 or a GCC manual depending on the size can be used on the same namespace as the C++ book)--Panic 04:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of reusing the same namespace for parts that get too big. The should then be linked from the main page, but omitted in the one-page version. Kinda like: "Programming C Plus Plus, Volume 1: Introduction to C++. Programming C Plus Plus, Volume 2: Win32 Programming, etc. --Max 16:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That was the idea, but I think MShonle doesn't like it... but we have some other stuff to do first so we shouldn't need to address it right now.--Panic 00:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

About the contents
Makefiles should be on the compiler section.--Panic 01:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Makefiles are not part of C++. Unfortunately, we need them. So we can mention them in the introduction (with the example build under unix maybe). They should be mentioned in the compiler section as well as a TOOL. And i believe the belong to the "real world", especially for unix users. However, they should have about the same attention as other build systems (Visual Studio, Borland, Watcom, XCode, Eclipse CDT, your-favorite-ide-here) --Max 01:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think all of the OS/Compiler-specific information should be put into an appendix. MShonle 02:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, the info that relates to specific implementations or OSs yes, but how can you talk about C++ without an introduction to how a compiler works and the preprossesor (defines codeguards headers even linkage to external libs etc...), even how to do basic interpretation of the debugging, traces, breakpoints this is needed information for learning, most of the time people ask about stuff that is probably already described on the error message the compiler gave, for a newbie to the language that is a must...--Panic 04:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, how a compiler works, and what the praeprocessor does is Standard C++. However, how to build (with makefiles or IDE) and how to debug (IDE / GDB) is so different on different platforms / environments that they can be covered on a conpectual level (a debugger lets you go through the program line-by-line) but can not be explained with an example. This specific things should go either into an appendix (building and debugging on linux) or in a separate book (and referenced here).

Programming:C plus plus/FAQ could be merged with the existing content, there is duplication of information and as we are working on a book and we do already provide links to existing and active FAQ pages. --Panic 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Max if in place of adding references to other pages (your last edits on Conventions (Source Code Style)), we created a section on Code Style pages in the external the references and point to it ? PS: Some of them are of C and Java ?!? --Panic 03:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Programming:C_plus_plus/Code_Style --Max 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Notice of Merge
As per Wikibook's Forking policy the separate books Programming:C plus plus and Programming:C -/- -/- will be merged into a single book. The monolithic book versus separate chapters conflict shall be resolved by including an All Chapters page that is a transclusion of all of the sub-modules. The book Programming:C -/- -/- and its subpages will be deleted in two weeks (roughly around September 21, 2005). Upon request the material can be available (in some form) for a period longer than the two weeks. Forking can harm Wikibooks in that it divides the community effort into producing a Wikibook, essentially lengthening the time it creates to finish a Wikibook and creating redundant information. This policy aims to encourage community cooperation, unify contributor effort, and reduce the amount of redundant material on Wikibooks.

--Panic 01:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This action is under dispute --Panic 02:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though you dispute the merge do not move this notice. MShonle 19:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I hereby request that the pages be available for the two weeks, as locked pages if needed, or in any other form that gives access to the source. --Max 21:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

=Q&A on Editing the Books (or WIKI)=


 * Q : Ok, there are 3 versions: This book (monolithic), this book (multiple pages), and the Programming:C plus plus book. Which one of these versions is the active version? Where should i link to / contribute? -- Max 10 Sept 2005
 * Max, you should contribute to the Programming:C plus plus book. This book is going to be deleted in 10 days. MShonle 19:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A : There are 2 books, not with the same content, The Programming:C Plus Plus and the Programming in C -/- -/- (I'm trying a merge into Programming in C -/- -/- as "requested" by moderators (you can also help), it can't be a direct copy because of the dif. structure and content, the Monolithic version is being turned into chapters (using transclusion) to provide a easy way to copy/print the most important parts of the Programming in C -/- -/- book (not finished yet as can be asserted by the index, but the content is the same only displayed in a dif. format (I'm marking stuff as I do that, I probably should make it more evident to readers/writers), any help also apriciated on that... txs for your interest in contribution to the book.

PS: If you wish we can distribute some tasks so not to step in each others actions--Panic 07:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

So let me know if i got this right:

I should link to the multi-page version of this book, since this is the future. New stuff / Corrections should also go into the multi-page versions. If a new chapter is added, :_OnePage and :_Index need to be updated, but nothing else.

The things currently in the :_OnePage need to go into different chapters, and :_OnePage and :_Index need to be updated.

Now the only question i have left is: Some pages have a colon (e.g. Programming_in_C -/- -/-:_Introduction) and some don't (Programming:C_-/-_-/-_Programming_Language). Which version is the way to go?

-- Max 11 Sept 2005
 * Hi Max. You should link to the Programming:C plus plus version. That book currently uses space separators for chapter name, although it should really be colons. What you use right now shouldn't be a big deal: so long as it's consistent with whatever style the links near it use, then when it's all changed and standardized it will become correct. MShonle 19:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi MShonle. Thank you for the feedback. However, my indented audience are students taking a beginners C++ programming course. From comparing the two books I found the C -/- -/- way easier to read and understand for beginners. So as longs as there are two book I prefer this one. -- Max 11 Sept 2005
 * Well, I suppose that's the catch here. That is, the "so long as their are two books" part: this book will be deleted by the 21st. (It's a rather long and sorted story, but see the Staff lounge for more details.) The most useful of this book's contents, consistent with the other version, should be merged with the existing book. You can merge the contents of the two into Programming:C plus plus if you'd like. But as a resource this book won't be up on Wikibooks so anything you work on here won't be posted, unless you (or someone else) adds it to Programming:C plus plus. MShonle 23:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Q : How does someone turn off line justify (and only justify) ? --Panic 03:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A : ?

I don't understand the question. Inside a table, you can switch between left-justified, right-justified, and center-justified, but I don't even know what it means to be non-justified.

It's also possible to break lines that would otherwised be merged into one long paragraph.

Yup, I know that but some times http:// references seem to make for a wierd justification, probably a bug on wiki and even today in my user page I had a line that didn't get justified (without any wiki codes). --Panic 03:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  and   are explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Section#Table_of_contents_.28TOC.29 -- does that answer your question ?
 * Q : Been looking on how TOCs work, can we use the local javascript to hide/show it, how ? --Panic 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A :

Templates
Quick Wikibooks links to edit template: Templates - Wikipedia template help

wrongtitle http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Template:Wrongtitle used to state:

TODO http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Template:TODO used to state:

Navigational "Template" (not a real wiki template)
Paddu has added an example:

that is now been implemented but not as a Template on the work. GREAT --Panic 00:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion
Based on Paddu example:

this is now been implemented on part of the work.

List

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

=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 author a email maybe he would like to port it over here or contributing... --Panic 02:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

=conventions= (If you are an active contributor / engaged on any of the proposals you are free to edit this section NOTE: Some quotes may not match the original source try to find if words match what you said if you think it's relevant to the discussion)

P1 - Common Programming Errors
Paddu said " ", proposed to look into Infoboxes
 * NOTE : Dysprosia agreed but proposed a different 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 misunderstood the proposal.
 * Paddu did not advance the idea 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 idea again)

P2 - Brace Style (Closed)
P2 - Last action -> 17 Dec 2003'''


 * 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.

P3 - Separate Chapters (Closed)
P3 - Last action -> 22 Feb 2004
 * There are now different and separate chapters, so the proposal is dead (will add this to the conventions and remove proposal as adopted)

P4 - Broad overview (Closed)
P4 - Last action -> 12 May 2004
 * There are specialized chapters now, so the proposal is dead (will add this to the conventions and remove proposal as adopted)

P5 - Having all material in a book in a single page (Closed)
P5 - Last action -> 02:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is now some limited use of transclusion (more will be used as the work progresses), the idea is to maintain the monolithic format but also facilitate a reformat of the book into small chapter or even include parts in other books later on...

=Achived General Proposal Discussion= Original Posts are kept in here... "Active Proposal Discussions" (now inactive for more than 7 days) should be moved to the archive after some references are added to the proper proposal location.

=Other works that can be merged to the book...= Please check if the works do indeed adhere to the GNU Free Documentation (or compatible) licenses, before adding from them, if anyone can find a location that has a resumed up table or global information that would be nice...

If you add any titles please use the right Copyright templates or if possible do a verbatin copy to Wikibooks, txs.

Q&A Copyright

 * Q : Can anyone explain how to implement other works Invariable Sections on a Wikibook ? --Panic 01:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A : ?

=Active Debate (General)=

Please do try to check responses to your post from time to time, if you think some action should be incorporated into the proposals and a given time of inactivity (7+ days is ok) is verified, move the relevant information to the proper location, or take any just action as justified by your post and archive the original thread...

Contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. By treating others with respect, we are able to cooperate effectively in building an instructional resource. Check Etiquette for pointers.

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)

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)

(cur) (last) 20:01, 17 Nov 2004 Panic2k4 M (reverted - yes and no this is a relevant reference not an add value to the context if portability of the context is to be maintained this info needs to be visible (se 2nd convention)) (cur) (last) 06:32, 17 Nov 2004 Dysprosia M (revert. internal wikilinks should be internal, that should be obvious) (cur) (last) 02:25, 17 Nov 2004 Panic2k4 M (The Programming Language - fix)

You are correct, I swear that I saw it, the edits times aren't that close, but could it have been a cross edit ?!? I do have been having huge problems with my ISP using "forced" cache proxy (or wiki not dealing with them properly)... sorry Ill correct my statement... What you did was not a reversion but due to your wording on the comment and the quick (and now confirmed as erroneous) check I did, I was lead on error, but even so the use of reversions does already have a warning from wikibooks, the proposal is valid in the sense it ports it to the conventions section...

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 with the content 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 17:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Plagarism ?
Someone has been filling significant amounts of the body of this text with plagarized material from "How To Think Like A Computer Scientist: Learning with C++" by Allen B. Downey.

The two sentences that struck me as odd were: "So far we have looked at the elements of a programming language---variables, expressions, and statements---in isolation, without talking about how to combine them." in the "Composition (Operator Precedence)" section and "A natural way to represent a point in C++ is with two doubles." in the "Structures" section of the book. The former sentence is from chapter 2, section 2.19, while the latter is from chapter 8, section 8.2 of the aforementioned book by Allen Downey. A cursory check of the surrounding text seems to have also been copied.

If this work was copied with the permission of Allen Downey, I apologize for playing Chicken Little. --Chuck Hoffmann 08:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've checked that on google and it seems there are also references to "So far we have looked at the elements of a programming language" in other works like "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist von Allen B. Downey: Java Version" http://ada.rg16.asn-wien.ac.at/~javafs/cs/ and then found http://allendowney.com/cs230spring02/code/hw09/text.txt that has the GNU Free Documentation License (Ive downloaded the last one) ... so we are cool, I'll add the last work to the list of docs that can be "predated" on as soon as you or any other user checks that what I said is correct (no need to remove that frases of the work so far...), I not calling ya "Chicken Little" :) at this moment (do you know a reference to the story in question? I get the general ideia but dont have a cultural reference)

Humm Ive found this...

"Chicken Little" is a story for teaching courage. Don't be a chicken little. Don't be afraid. The sky is not falling.

http://eleaston.com/chicken.html is this it ? (I think its a bed time story right ?, it seems that there are some movies about it also :) )

PS: Ill add the actions taken by me to verify that the work did in deed have the right copyrights (or not) to the forword/reader section so to prevent erroneos warnings (or reduce them) --Panic 20:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just copied the http://allendowney.com/cs230spring02/code/hw09/text.txt Programming:The_way_of_the_program --Panic 00:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have only found additional versions of the work Chuck is referencing. The first is a translation of Mr. Downey's text, so I don't know what it says; but the second is in fact a GNUFDL'ed version of Mr. Downey's work. However, there are several problems with its use. First, Mr. Downey's work is GNU-FDL version 1.1, while we use version 1.2.; as the source text does not declare "GFDL version 1.1 and all future versions", but only states version 1.1, it can not be used under our license. Secondly, just because a work is GFDL'ed doesn't give us the right to simply copy and paste portions of that work here. The GFDL requires appropiate credit be given to the author of a work, and right now that has not happened. I'm considering labeling this entire work a copyright violation, and listing it for deletion on those grounds. Gentgeen 20:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok found the original source...

http://web.archive.org/web/20030211041642/www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCScpp/

How To Think Like A Computer Scientist Learning with C++ by Allen B. Downey

referred as an open textbook and as no direct reference to a license is given it falls under the Public Domain it seems that many other sources may exist and many other works may have "cross polarizations" from it...

" Allen B. Downey, professor of Computer Science at Wellesley College, originally wrote "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist"in Java, as a textbook for his computer science class. Over the summer of 1998, Professor Downey converted the Java version of "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist" into C++. Since then, the Java version has undergone several major changes, including the addition of Abstract Data Types such as Stacks, Queues, and Heaps. The C++ version of the open textbook however, did not receive these changes, that is...until now."

humm... and then the copy I have posted in wikibooks has GFDL 1.1 that states

"Aggregation with Independent Works

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, does not as a whole count as a Modified Version of the Document, provided no compilation copyright is claimed for the compilation. Such a compilation is called an ``aggregate, and this License does not apply to the other self-contained works thus compiled with the Document, on account of their being thus compiled, if they are not themselves derivative works of the Document."

Even worse, that book, article has/includes a license in it raw state (not filled in) so even if we can attest that it intended to use it, if it's not filled it would fall under published under the Public Domain, right ?

GNU-FDL version 1.1 and GNU-FDL version 1.2+ all have references that allow the use of "snips"

as for: "Secondly, just because a work is GFDL'ed doesn't give us the right to simply copy and paste portions of that work here."

Most of the the work here is on Wikipedia GFDL texts/articles so it will also suffer from that problem ?

I'm not a lawier but that is my interpretation, as for the stated problem this is an open book you can add yourself the needed references to Allen B. Downey in an appropriate section, as you can see was already some actions had already been to rectify this, it's better than removing all of the content...--Panic 21:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have also checked that some other works on wikibooks have snips from other works on wikibooks (not only references from wikipedia) --Panic 22:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first version you said you couldn't read is in English (one topic seems that to be in German, enter any one of the topics and you will see...)

As for the Java references that not the problem as many of the content applies to any other programming language.

A clarification that is missing (and your comment made me check into) and other readers/users should be able to read (you should have put a link to it), is that even if a grave problem arises the work WILL NOT BE DELETED, the page will be blanked but the work accessible with the history function (moderators should have a template for that).

As far as I know no author has made a claim, not even wikipedians, a reader made a remark that was correct but was checked and does have some very good bases to fall under a GDFL or a compatible license. I know moderators are busy people and all that, but I think you should get deeper on your role... or at least state that you are busy at the moment not let us hung with the threat of deletion as you did (on top of that, it seems that a simple action (just reference/credit) taken by yourself would solve part of the moderation problem you have), You also missed all the prev. points/questions on this page that lack moderation attention, this regrettable because it prevents or at least makes people think twice about contribution, Paddu as a question waiting on [Wikibooks:Staff_lounge] since October, probably most of the problems I and C++/CPlusPlus users had could have been prevented, a similar topic was already on your own talk page waiting for some time.

As a first time wikibook user/contributor this hasn´t been an overall good experience for me, I thought the idea was to bring content and most people seem to spend the time raising problems and debating small editorial questions, one thing that I observed is that contributors don't tend to spend much time debating such mood points. As a programmer I tend to build on other peoples work not reinvent the wheel, I have based the structure of this book in some books I have and if seen useful and ready to use, with compatible licenses, I will be prone to use them in place of doing all from basic.

I'm not saying that you are doing a bad job but at this time it seems incomplete, can you refer an email (in accord with the wikibooks protocol) so to solve this problem ASAP, I will send all works I have found and in future, any other anyone else intends in using so to expedite the license checks, txs. --Panic 05:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Avoid_Copyright_Paranoia]

"An entry which contains a few copied phrases from individual websites or other sources. Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable."

and from Copyrights

"If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikibooks without your permission, then please contact our Designated agent to have it permanently removed (you may blank the page but the text will still be in the page history). You may also place the module title of the offending page on Wikibooks:Votes for deletion. We will, of course, need some evidence to support your claim of ownership."

"If you suspect that content on a particular module contains a copyright infringement, then you may replace the text with the boilerplate copyright infringement notice text at Wikibooks:Boilerplate text."

Should check also: Guidelines for admins at Deletion_policy

I´ll move the references to a proper section as soon as this is resolved... --Panic 06:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TODOs
I saw that James Dennett started to use TODOs notes on the book, I was using commented out notes but the idea is probably more pleasant to readers that can see that a section is in evolution and to contributors than can add to it (no one likes to see TODOs :) ) I've made them a bit more visible and removed ''' messes up the text justification on long phrases, I have added


 * (TODO: )

done with (You can copy-paste):

;(TODO: )

I have some ideas to the NOTEs and WARNINGs, I'll wait first for anyone to comment on the TODOs... if no one oppose I'll move it to the conventions and add the code to edit section, a wikibooks:template would be nice but I had not the time to see about them properly yet, the TOC should also be fixed, a smaller one (it seems that it can't be "hidden" by default but that will only be useful if we can use the hide/show javascript on it... --Panic 05:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NOTE
Ive started to implement a new style for NOTEs

I had it centred but now I can't remember how I did it maybe   n1 ? --Panic 18:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transclusion editing
I seems to have a problem with editing content that are included by transclusion. For example the external section have be edited and showing up if one look at the external section on its own. The old one still show up tho on the main page. Any idea / particular reason why ? -- KTC 08:11, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Forceful worked around it today by deleting and then reinserting the transclusion. Somehow, doesn't feel like that being a long term solution tho... -- KTC 21:58, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry KTC, I did not get a notice for this post, txs for the help, I don't particularly master Wiki (or like it) but it is a good tool for this purpose, I've noticed that with transclusions the updates takes a little more time to become active, it's probably some kind of caching that the server/software does to speed stuff up, I've not taken the time to look into it but the updates do become active after a while...

As you did (or not) noticed this "work" is a fork after having had some problems with the last "active" contributor, one of the points under discussion was that the work should be split into chapter/sections, so and thinking on future contributors that have slow connections or software limitations on the edits, I've started splitting some more stable/static parts of the "work" using transclusions that in a future stage could be used to give a more modular look to the project, as my intention is to have at least one global look on the structure (so to facilitate the modification of the logical structure/display of content), a monolithic format is ideal for this as for grabbing a copy of the work, doing a print out or conversion to PDF etc...

Don't panic... use the same steps I do, as you are editing stuff turn on (Watch this page) and take a look on Recent Changes (wikibooks main) and that will keep you up to date with any edits... --Panic 05:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=Programming in C -/- -/-=

Archive: ( add here )

Cover Image ...
I made a quick image for the cover... I've added it to the top of the Foreword section, it should be made local (uploaded) to wikibooks (but I cant the upload function seems to mess up the file, if anyone can do it, and think it's worth it please do, txs) if any other idea for a cover pic (that will serve to be used on top of a reference page with all the sections in the future, move them all to this discussion topic)... --Panic 02:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. You can add your description. I'm unsure about the licence you have used so I've said GFDL to avoid getting into trouble with the Wikipolice. Sorry if that hurts you. BTW, I recall seeing this image somewhere else, could it have been anywhere else on Wikimedia? --GatesPlusPlus 16:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Txs GatesPlusPlus.

As for the license I didn't intend to protect the image it should fall on the Public Domain, I did it for fun and after looking at another book that had a cover image.

Hum I didn't copy or examine any other image to create this one, I used some tools that reduced any need to do the handwork (so similar creations may exist) but I find doubtful that they can have a similar look... --Panic 00:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename page to "C Plus Plus"
I think that we should follow the Wikipedia naming conventions and rename this article to "C Plus Plus" as in Wikipedia:C Plus Plus. Suggestions? --Dionyziz 16:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Hy Dionyziz...

Herr, There is already a C plus plus book (I have forked it to build this one) with another filosofy on its order and content, so a rename/merge isn't workable at least at this time... --Panic

Perhaps calling it "CPP" (as in Programming:CPP) then, since that's technically a correct way to name C++? "C -/- -/-" just seems funny/weird.&hellip; &mdash;qrc July 9, 2005 17:41 (UTC)

You are free to try to centralize the C++ books with a front page and link and try to merge every work (into a new) structure. (that would/should be done in the future)... --Panic 00:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Prehaps you should read the Naming policy. The current name is running under WB:NP. So if at all a new name should be somthing like:


 * Cpp Programming
 * How-To programm in C plus plus
 * Programming in C -/- -/-

Ohterwise you end up being not a book but only chapter in a very very big Programming book.

--Krischik 17:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: with a good browser/internet connection you can rename about a 100 pages per hour.

Grummbll, it's hard to fallow all the policies as they get changed / created all the time (even if you really don't care about it, my main problem is content not reformatting the books every 4 months because some new order of the bookshelf was adopted, that is real annoying, it's the 3rd time I have to pass that ordeal first in C Plus Plus) I will comply with:

The hyphen convention: Bookname - Chaptername

if no one objects, I'll do the renames as I go along editing stuff (if n1 helps that would be great, but check the dependencies and remember that templates seem to notice page name changes), as for the name I do like the -/- -/- it's the closes to ++ one can get... the problem is with wikimedia not the name in itself, as for CPP (I really don't like it, not even as a file extension for C++ source files) and C Plus Plus only sounds better because it's the name adopted by Wikipedia... so the best option available seems Programming in C -/- -/-

Since I read the page I've noticed The colon convention I'll use that on the Index also...

Finished ... not 100 pages but it took some time... --Panic 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

--Panic 18:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion was only for the case that there is an actual rename. You are always free to leave erverything as it is - after all: content is more important.

--Krischik 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: The hyphen convention is a WB:NP as well.

Headers Reference Tables
moved from orphaned talkpage

i think every standard header deserves its own article, so i made them all link to articles which doesn't exist yet. --213.209.71.238 16:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with you, for a newcomer to the language the use of external headers can be very confusing...--Panic 01:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

= Programming:C# =

Archive: ( add here )

Talk C sharp
Why does the talk page of Programming:C sharp get redirected to here, Talk:Programming: C -/- -/- ? --DavidCary 07:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello there DavidCary...

In the rule book of wikibooks it says that talk pages should be kept to a minimum and due probably to fact that the creation of the C# book was done by a contributor to this book (on C++) and the generic debated topics would be the same or similar. Is there a reason for a stand alone page for it ? (My opinion is that would probably duplicate discussions and fragment the contributors base)... --Panic

"the rule book of wikibooks" ? Would you mind linking to it ? The Talk page doesn't say anything about keeping talk pages to a minimum. --DavidCary 03:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hum, just google for it something like: http://(a9.com/wikibooks OR Wikipedia) (talk OR discussion) create page (duplication OR rules OR policy)

This should report the needed info, but there were generated new policies so you may not find the prev. text (I did use the link and found a new policy but could n't find the prev. text)... --Panic 00:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=Programming:Java=

Archive: ( add here )

Programming:Java as 'Other'
What is causing Programming:Java to appear in the Category:C_plus_plus_programming_language page sorted under 'O'? Is it because of the mention of ? Shenme 04:17, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Instead of using that template create your own Programming:Java Other template. -- Paddu 15:56, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, do not duplicate stuff, just fix it, someone added a template to the Other and every other "section" of C++ ...

It fixed/closed so if anyone has the time archive this thread, txs... --Panic 01:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

=Networking:Peer-to-Peer (P2P)=

Archive: ( add here ) Just started the book still creating some order into it... --Panic 00:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)