Talk:C++ Programming/Content/Archive 1

About forking
Why can't we use it? (it's in the naming proposal for books isn't it ?) Content being reproduced = if similar works or a divergence of, herr complexity of the book is created/implemented parts of the topics that are included in one version or another or even if it creates the need to introduce specific chapter lets say removing the STL to a dif. book and by doing so create the necessity of in a few lines try to give an introduction to the "topic", this is duplication of efforts and probably even content, more, such "derivations" are considered forks (fork is an split of effort, by creating a derivative work, this is why it's protected by the GFDL. Vision or topic, goal or even implementation may be the reason of the fork, but never the less a fork is equal to creating a derived work), this is part of the reason I state the fork policy is badly written, as it is it prohibits the split of chapters of a book into new books, if they become hosted in the wikibooks server even translations can be put in check they are forks/derived (some) form a book that is already on the server, any debate of this are only based on POV, as stated it's what we now have (see Fork (software development)...--Panic

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)

Needs to be easier to understand
In my opinion, this book needs to be dumbed down. People who come here to read about C++ probably have minimal programming experience, and are looking to get their feet wet. I am half way through studying to be an Electrical and Computer Engineer with a 3.2 gpa, I currently work as a Software Engineer, and I find myself having to read paragraphs 2 or 3 times before I understand what it is saying.

Yup technical books can be hard to fallow, can you give an example of how one should go about it (to dumb down the book) ? I did start to provide links to wikipedia on the introduction of some concepts that go beyond the scope of the book. Some parts can probably benefit from some more examples or can be extended to clarify some points, you and other contributors are free to edit as they see fit ...--Panic 02:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Request: where do I put binary logical operations
There's a section on logical operations, but what goes in there? Is this for conditional operations only or are binary logical operations to be included as well? Also, I have written some text that explain how shifting works on a very basic level. This text follows from the discussion on binary boolean operations. Should I split it up? Where would I put it? Appendix? --Cleo

Can you put a link/page in the section

Items needing work * Merge...

are you building it from the ground up, adapting it from a prev. work ?

Try to see if parts can be used in: C++ Programming/Variables C++ Programming/Operators

or other sections... if not you can build it as a complete module and add it as an Appendix--Panic 04:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm adapting from a previous work that I wrote but never released. I have binary boolean operations and shifting. Actually, I do have a section on boolean operators for conditional expressions as well. My main concern was the already existing but empty Logical operations section. hmmm... this is more an organizational issue than anything else. No disrespect to anyone... and how do I say diplomatically?.. Me personally, I find that the topics are arranged in a way that lacks flow to the content. As a purely reference book, this is fine... so it may be a moot point. Maybe I can explain myself better... I have content I wish to contribute, but I find myself frustrated as to where I should put it as it relates to other content in the book to give it continuity. And I'm not gonna go in and muck things around just because it suits me.

I think following the "if statement" section, it should follow with all things relating to conditional statements such as boolean or logical operators, early exit topics, else and else if topics etc. (in the correct order mind you). Single statements vs. block statement should be explained here or before. Then there should be another place where they talk about operators that work on integral types such as math operators, shifting, binary logical operators, etc. Then go on about floating point maybe. I like how all the loop topics follow each other. That's nice. But I find that variables and operators is rather vague. On the whole, to me right now it seems like the city planning of Paris. Great city, but I need a map for the map. I'm not mentioning this to be mean. I'm mentioning it because I have no idea where to contribute. And if I'm frustrated, I'm betting others don't even bother.

All right, I got it figured out. But it's gonna require a bit of reorganisation. I'll give it some more thought first. This post is more to sort my thoughts out. But if you have ideas/comments/disagree, I'd like to hear about it. --Cleo (frustrated)

You can copy-paste to the merge section as I said or you can find the right places to put them into, take a look into the single page of the book (it's easier to find what is where), you can move stuff around if someone (inc. me) disagrees they will move it back or ask you about the changes, this is a fluid work, you can also do a demo of your ideal structure and ask for agreement, even votes to make changes static (in a given lenght of time)...

After the merge of the 2 books most chapters are under heavy changes and reorganization, I think up to "Namespaces" things are in the right place, I've been keeping the monolithic version up-to-date with the changes I've been making...--Panic 05:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely right! I'll reorganise things on my end text-wise. And try and make it fit. I can always move it later as you've said. I think I'll wait until after the merge and see how everything goes. Even now, the format is changing... Ok, this section before you (discussion) can be removed I suppose. I don't need it anymore. --Cleo 00:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I also think that the organization could use a bit of improvement. The page titled "A statically-typed free-form multi-paradigm language" really doesn't need to be one of the first parts of the language that is introduced. Also, the next section "the preprocessor" also doesn't need to be learned (in my option) until after the reader types out and compiles their first hello-world program. I think that if this book is intended to teach then it should have a logical, flowing order. However if it is purely a reference book then the order is fine. If it is a suppose to be a reference book, then I think a seperate book intended to teach (which would, for the most part, be a collection of links to the reference book, and have a bit of instruction/explanation included) would also be beneficial. Because of the previous fork issue, I am not creating a seperate book, just suggesting that the scope of this book be clarified.--Athgorn 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The chapters organization is not fixed it's a virtual arrangement one can always provide a dif. structure and/or add/remove chapters from that given display as for the content, yes, it's always evolving, contributors should take into account that the overall structure is not fixed and abstract from it as much as they can. As for presenting on the actual "structure" the part that refers to "A statically-typed free-form multi-paradigm language" at the beginning of the book (or near it), I think it must be present for the future reader to comprehend that the language does not fallow a single paradigm and this concept is needed to provide a description to what the C++ language is... The "the preprocessor" bit is needed to introduce the concept of #include for example, this is a somewhat technical book technical books are not to be read from cover to cover they are structure in a order that introduces concepts and tries to explain them as stepping stone to an overall objective in this case the C++ language, in dead trees books one find himself going back and forth reading some details that seemed unimportant at the time they were introduced in this digital format that is even easier to do... but as I said a reformulated structures can be created but this is more a possible costumization than a  real need... The scope of the book is defined on the book charter... --Panic 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, uh, ok. I stand corrected. Oh, and I'll try not to make edits that break things from now on. Athgorn 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)