Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 6

The Tocs
We really need to merge this into one TOC so we can start working on this book instead of adding this content here but not there and then take this content away from that and ect. See my point? 4.254.217.210 (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, everybody's ignoring me. That's nice.

Anyway, for those of you that do read this, I'm giving you a week to come up with the ToC this page is going to redirect to. If you have not settled the issue after a week, I'm going to let outside opinions decide. ~VNinja~ 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this book has history and issues which lead to the current mess with multiple TOCs, and improvement has been resisted doggedly in the past. If you'd like to be constructive, you would do well to adopt a less confrontational approach; help to resolve this would be great, but throwing oils on the fire doesn't have much chance of a good outcome. -- James Dennett (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmhm. However, it doesn't really seem like people want to solve our ToC problem, so, I'm attempting to force them too. ~VNinja~ 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I was going to stay quiet and see were you were going User talk:VenomousNinja, since you had much enthusiasm but showed a limited level of knowledge of the problem involving the TOCs, and indeed you seemed aggressive in your stance, if the issue was still hot you would probably cause more damage than help solve anything in that way. Wikibooks is about dialog, compromise and consensus and a small set or rules are provided to avoid conflicts, due to the level/tone of your overall contributions I didn't took your first (signed) post as needing a reply and I generally avoid replying to unsigned posts, if you were the author of those, please consider that as the probable reason no one did address you.
 * Since James Dennett did try to address your concerns I will take this time to explain the issues to you, so to reduce the possibility that any problem may arise. As it is the TOCs have no real problem, at least at present the issue, as I see it is almost resolved.
 * The foremost problem was addressed by an administrative removal of any TOC from the "coverpage" (to no one satisfaction I'm sure) and a lock is in place since then, that in itself as I see it against the normal ways such edit disputes should addressed or resolved but the conflict at the time was hot and not primarily around the TOCs.
 * As I see it the original sin and my primary concern was the unilateral substitution of the existing TOC by another, even after an extensive dialog and expressed objections were known and understood, looking back, it could have been a result of other active debates around several other and mostly unrelated issues, anyway the issue was as I said above resolved administratively with the result that we now have. What is still on the table is not the content/validity or immutability of of the TOCs (all TOCs were always open to edits, the book had even previously to this problem other TOCs) but the reposition of the status quo, that is the reversal of the first action, restoring the TOC to its original location (since the implementation of an address all solution is impractical if not technically impossible at present, having multiple TOCs exist on the cover page enabling several navigational schemes), in any case the substitution toc that was moved to the coverpage has been stale since the last "content" edit September 2007, at present it indexes less that 50% of the work and is mostly obsolete (there are other related edit concerns but not directly relevant to the issue). Since the creator of the alternative TOC did mostly esthetically and structural changes to the work, ie: created also the useful Editor's TOC (not part of the issue), and has since then started another book on the same topic (that is also stale now but created with the scope he was attempting to formalize on TOC2), since then there was a proposal to deleted TOC2 that has (formally) passed but need that I gather some confidence and check if the other part was aware of it (the page was monitored but may have removed it from the watchlist by accident), since I think the other editor must be directly informed before proceeding, but I have been procrastinating doing it...
 * Ok hope I have passed to you an understanding of what "was" the problem and why things are as they are, or why I'm not to keen in speeding things up. --Panic (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice history lesson, thanks. Really.
 * That doesn't help me, nor does it help the book. See, because of these multiple ToCs, we aren't getting any work done on this wikibook. The C# book is a featured book, and C++ is much better(in my opinion), so why should'nt we be a featured book? The answer is because our books don't have a high quality of work, which is caused by the multiple ToCs, another one of the reasons we aren't a featured book. In reality, I'm trying to work towards the goal of making this book featured, but before that can happen, we need an official ToC. ~VNinja~ 20:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have just performed the last step and contacted the creator of ToC2 and the deletion issue was not challenged, even if the user seems not to be aware or pleased on how the discussion and conclusion was reached, in any case I can only state that the methodology was the same as every other decission we take on the book and even greater consideration was given to  any objection than over the action that lead to the problem. So the requirements are now met and I will move to get the coverpage restored.  --Panic (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet. If I can help out at all, just let me know. ~VNinja~ 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For fuck sake! Are you people children or something?  There are more than 1 TOC.  This is a problem.  Delete one of them.  It's that simple.  Why the fuck does it take you people so long to do the simplest of things?  Thank fuck Wikimedia isn't in charge of the world otherwise nothing would ever be done.  Panic stop fucking moaning and being confrontational, everyone else stop ganging up on Panic.  Have a simple vote (or straw poll or whatever the fuck Wikipedians like to call it) and then delete the losing TOC.  Do you guys need help putting your pants on as well?--217.202.56.85 (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely unhelpful comment & I'd be shocked if it actually does come from an administrator. I hope Xania will log in and either confirm of disconfirm that this comment was indeed theirs. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, flaming isn't going to help this book and neither will it make you feel better. If you want to help, be helpfull, please. Gyzome (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of refraining from unilaterally removing the link to TOC2 from the Editor's TOC while there's clearly not consensus? -- James Dennett (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll restore it if you object to the removal. But consensus on the proposal was reached James, in the Decision making if you look in the process in point 5 it states "If there are no objections, the proposal is accepted and affirmative "community consensus" has been reached on the proposal.". I take you have some reservations on toc2 deletion by your vote on the aborted VFD (to what I gave a reply) but you failed again to commit in the extension (7-9 days) made to the adoption of the proposal, just to address the VFD vote you made, since there was no objection before that, I have made you direct request to express any still lingering objection, solution or alternative on the proper forum. Doing those type of asynchronous statement isn't very productive either.
 * Anyhow I have changed my opinion that there is a need to delete the page (TOC2), I have a yet incomplete concept that will indeed give the page some purpose, I will get to it when I have the time. --Panic (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

C I/O and C++ I/O
"Standard C style I/O" looks like

"C++ style I/O" looks like

Currently this book discusses "Standard C style I/O" in the C++ Programming/Chapter Fundamentals chapter, and then later discusses "C++ style I/O" in the C++ Programming/Chapter Advanced Features chapter. I think that's exactly backwards.

So today I did this: Moved the following links from the "Advanced Features" chapter to the "Fundamentals" chapter:
 * C++ Programming/Code/IO
 * C++ Programming/Code/IO/Streams/string
 * C++ Programming/Code/IO/Streams

Moved the following links from the "Fundamentals" chapter to the "Advanced Features" chapter:
 * C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library
 * C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library/IO
 * C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library/String & Character
 * C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library/Math
 * C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library/Time&Date
 * C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library/Memory
 * C++ Programming/Code/Standard C Library/Other

--DavidCary (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I also updated C++ Programming/Chapter Fundamentals Summary and C++ Programming/Chapter Advanced Features Summary to reflect this change. --DavidCary (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm considering going even further: Do you think that's going too far? --DavidCary (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Old C style stuff in the Standard C Library that has been made obsolete by newer, better C++ stuff -- printf, malloc, etc. has been obsoleted by "cout <<", "new", etc. -- tear those pages out of this book and stick them into the the C Programming book; let this C++ book pretend they never existed.
 * Stuff in the Standard C library that is still useful to C++ programmers -- sin, cos, difftime, etc. -- stick them into the C Programming book also, but leave behind a short summary with links to the more detailed information in that other book.


 * I would wish you had made this post in the right discussion area...
 * In any case the change you made is "political" and cosmetic (and only partially complete) not about content or defending your view/approach next to the reader.
 * I think I understand your view point, but don't feel that the move at this time is productive and that it has no informative value, it even breaks the existing structure since the place holders or qualifiers were also changed in a similar way before calling the Standard C Library as Advanced or placing it after the STL to me is detrimental to the work, you could have done it by explaining the approach and relevance on how to handle the concepts in the book itself that would be informative to the reader.
 * The C part of C++ is as relevant as discussing the unique concepts of the language, hiding or banning it to the back pages will in no way promote the understanding of the language, you are in fact enforcing your "understanding" of the language on others going about it this way, especially if the user/reader cant get hold (or doesn't need) to use the new features of the language, like if he is working on embedded systems, but that is another discussion, sadly you made the change before explaining your ideas (I did spend some time looking for the post mentioned in the edit comment).
 * Old C style stuff in the Standard C Library that has been made obsolete by newer, better C++ stuff this statement makes the last changes really objectionable, there is no old or new stuff in the terms you are putting it, even less better C++ stuff, there is the C++ language, the point of how one should go about learning it is debatable and I think you could, with better arguments behind it, explain and promote it to the reader, granting him the choice to select one approach without moving the pages around on the table of content. I would like you to think about how the changes did improve the book and see if you can live with restoring it as it was and approach the reader in the text.
 * You are ultimately going about it the wrong way, similar to some people that impose the OOP approach to the language, there is space for all approaches, there is no specific "right way", it all depends on the objective one is attempting to archive . --Panic (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a better place to discuss this? I spent some time trying to find the "right" place to talk about them.
 * Since I was editing the "C++ Programming/Chapter Fundamentals" module, one might think that Talk:C++ Programming/Chapter Fundamentals would be the appropriate place for me to talk about this change. --DavidCary (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:C++ Programming/Content there is a link on the top of this page and a request to use the appropriated location, just before your post. Feel free to make it as visible as possible if you had problems locating it others may also have. As for single pages talks, I don't feel that it they are really applicable and useful to book projects, people are already too fragmented to fallow any given discussion let alone hope that all interested have a watch on each page of a book. (I generally place redirects on page talks to this page) --Panic (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Front Page protection
Front page protection (move) is now restored. The front page is also sometimes referred as Title/Cover. Remember that changes in volume to it are addressed by a specific book convention. --Panic (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)