Talk:C++ Programming/Conventions/Archive 2

Headings
This would allow for a nice-looking one-page version. I will do that anyways with the exising modules (of course, I'll wait on the -/- -/- modules), but I'd like to have it in here for future authors --Max 01:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Web Link Policy
Try to add relevant WEB links to the text in a way that it facilitates the transformation of the book into  (ASCII) format without the loss of that "relevant" information, also enabling copy-paste operations from the readers.

Proposed: 18 Sept 2005

Authors Section
Every person making non-trivial changes may add themselves to the Authors section. Please add your full name. You may add zero or one of each:
 * link to your wikimedia page
 * link to your web-page
 * email address

Proposed: 19 Sept 2005

The proposal as stated above is just my idea. I am very open to and changes, but I do belive that we should agree on a format. --Max 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Humm should, couldn't it be changed to -may- or -if the author wishes to...- as no one is obliged to do it, as for the information we should limit what is acceptable but not ask for particular info to be added (as for other works for what I understand of the GFDL)--Panic 00:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

changed should to may. As for the info: I did not mean to ask the people for it, but rather to allow them to add that info, but not more. Maybe i need to re-word that? --Max 00:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

CALL 4 VOTES ( 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ) Please indicate by your vote if you are participating in this project.

Yes
--Panic 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) --Max 16:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Linkbar
I propose adding this info to the mainpage since all this wikibooks do relate to C++ in some way or another and it provides a quick way to move from book to book.

--Panic 03:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I see so reason not to do that. --Max 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's redundant with our bookshelves. Perhaps we could link to the programming bookshelf, but such a large banner is going too far. MShonle 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It only to facilitate the aggregation of similar readers/editors if (as there existed) every similar or related book links to each other it's easier to port/use similar content and give the reader a broader view of the possibilities...--Panic 17:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I we are going the way of moving contents to different books (e.g. a whole book on STl, a whole book on boost, etc.) then we should definitely link these from the main page. Otherwiese people will be asking: Where is such-and-such content? --Max 20:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We could put those links in a further reading section that's either on the main page or a subpage. While we want to provide links to other useful resources, we don't need to make an extra effort to draw attention to them. (I was also opposed to this linkbar being spammed on other books, partially because it only promoted the C -/- -/- fork (and not the original book) and partially because it's just too distracting of a banner.) --MShonle 20:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Since Panic voted no and was the originator, does that make this obsolete? I could live with either one --Max 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

CALL 4 VOTES ( 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ) Please indicate by your vote if are participating in this project.

No
--Panic 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to wikipedia
Comments:

I was not sure, but I think this is the way it was anyways, so i'd go with it --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Navigation
To support a good navigational scheme, the actual content should be on a page with the name Pagename_Content and included from the actual pagename. This allows including the same content from the one-page version and from a chapter version of this book.

Proposed: 18 Sept 2005

Replaced by:

To support navigation, each page should link to the previous and next page, using the tags. A navigational template will follow

Proposed: 21 Sept 2005


 * Given this idea I've tried on the Algorithms book to great effect. The (marginal) nav bar I had no longer shows up in the full text view (and thus I've included I link to it now). I suppose the only reason I missed using it before was because it wasn't an option before. :-) As for generating the "next" and "prevous" arguments for each use of the template it could either be done by hand, or by a bot that reads in the order of the all chapters view. I haven't tried out bots yet, but it could save time and avoid errors. Until then, prev and next could be done manually, unless there's another trick I don't know about. --MShonle


 * One other note: I don't have much time available lately, so if there are any high-level issues, like renaming a locked page, just leave a note on my user page. --MShonle

Navigation
Pro:
 * Chapter-to-chapter naviagtion makes it easier --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Con:


 * TOC would have to be maintaned in 3 places --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Selecting "edit" on a content does not open the right page (is this true? please verify) --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you select "edit" on a h2, h3, etc heading you get the right page. That includes if you click on the first h2, which should be the chapter name, effectively giving you the whole page. For the Computer Science:Data Structures chapters there is also a link at the bottom that says "edit this chapter." I assume that for most editors they will either make minor modifcations and use the heading edit buttons, or they will contribute a lot and already have the _content pages on their watch lists. MShonle 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

If my last argument is false, i'd vote to do it --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See above. MShonle 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Replaced by: I just found out that MediaWiki supports the tags. Put in a page things inside will not show up when the page is included (such as from the all_chapters page). So here's the idea:
 * Create a navigational template with forward and back
 * have a on every page. Either on the top, the bottom or both.

Comments? --Max 04:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Common Programming Errors
Comments:

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)

belongs into every book. There should be a template with a nice icon :). Right now the template should just be panics old one, since it worked. --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Reduce the page size more
30k is still awfully large. Pages should actually be much smaller.

Proposed: 18 Sept 2005

This isn't signed, I don't think 30K is a problem should a vote be made on this point (readers should be allowed to vote)--Panic 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

TODO Boxes
Pro:


 * People see imediately what is missing --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Con:


 * May scare readers (this book is not done yet) --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

If not used too often, i'd go with it. --Max 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Its like stubs there are no defined rules on how to use them, and I think of the book as never-ending work, there will be always things to add to it...--Panic 02:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to wikipedia
Links to wikipedia should be sparse. The should only be uses like other references, e.g. at the end of a chapter: "For further reading, see ..."

Proposed: 18 Sept 2005

This isn't signed, I do agree with the use of space references but not in aggregating them at the end of the book, references should be used to let readers explore some concepts,etc... that do not relate directly with the book topic, or used in a TODO box for future content mining...--Panic 04:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename Book + Namespace for this page
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 -/- -/-

Otherwise 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.

This page even if it relates to the C plus plus book is only Wikibooks related and should not be in the same namespace of the book, it should be on the talk: --Panic 02:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? Could you list that policy? I think you're mistaken. MShonle 08:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I would have liked one page in the main namespace (with the adopted and proposed issues) and one in the talk: namespace with the discussion. I guess we'll have to find the right policy on this one (could you please link it). --Max 03:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I saw it, I've looked again and couldn't, but ok let's look at it logically.

What is the difference in the normal namespace or root if you prefer and the Talk: ?

If contributing to the Talk: does it make you an author of the book (and benefit from the rights and obligations of the GFDL ?)

Why are pages that only deal with the structure and local framework of a given work included on an that same book? They can be easily considered off topic, and do not contribute content to the book in itself.--Panic 19:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Contributing to the talk does not make you an author, nor would I say would making minor spelling or grammatical fixes make you an author. But that's beside the point. Wikimedia projects are free form, there are no hard and fast rules that claim any page under a given name must be part of the book. This free form nature gives great freedom to contributors. For example, the whole vote for deletion process on wikipedia is just people editing a file, there's no formal voting buttons or things like that. Life changes too much to encode things in the software like that. But even if there were a policy like that, the need for a style-guide would be enough evidence that the policy should change. But this is all moot, considering that (1) style guides are entirely appropriate, (2) it does not matter in any sense if they are or are not part of the book, and (3) many other books do this already. MShonle 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this discussion belongs into the main wikibooks discussions, until some common policy, ideally for all wikibooks, is reaching. Just the fact that everyone of us three has a different option on what is meant "unspokenly" means that it'll finally have to be spoken. --Max 20:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Done, please check if I've missed any of the related points--Panic 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is in Staff lounge

First, the Programming namespace should be dropped as it is unnecessary and not a real namespace. We don’t have Games:Chess or Languages:Japanese so why Programming:C plus plus?

Second, the + character is now valid for names and should be used for the title of this book.

Gerard Foley 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree on both issues! :) --Orderud 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree and it's on the naming proposal or guides, but I had some troubles last time defending this view point... I don't agree in calling the book only "C++" --Panic 02:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here. It should be a book name and not the name of a programming language. See: Ada Programming, C# Programming, Java Programming. Off corse you don't have to follow that lead and can invent your own name. --Krischik T 12:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with calling the book only C++? Gerard Foley 16:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the same as calling all your children Joe... Differentiation...--Panic 17:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get you, C++ is fine for Wikipedia and for the Main Page, why not this book? C++ is what people are naturally going to type into the search box. What do you think if should be called? Gerard Foley 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Look again: those books which have allready moved out of Progamming: use there full name on the Main page. As for search: just hack in "Ada" in the search box an see what happens :-). --Krischik T 12:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

C++ is a reference to the language object, it's like calling a C++ compiler "C++ " and justify it's name with a similar logic that you are applying to a book name, a variation of the name should be fine, like "Programming C++" or "C++ Programming" a simple addition to the language name would not only clarify immediately that we are not referring to the C++ Language in itself but to something related (an action or a view point) for example; I'm also contributing to the wikibook "The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)" I could have named it "P2P" or "Peer-to-Peer" but I was limiting the usefulness of the book name, adding something to the subject matter will provide a simple extension to the object/objective of the book and give a reader some more info... That said, I don't object to the "C++" name but find it to be limited in itself, and can generate some confusion in the reader... You could check the book covers already submitted for this book for example, the change of the plus for the "+" is a battle I have been having for some time, heck, I have already moved the book 2 or 3 times the last one I was using "-/-" :)... --Panic 03:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But you agree that the Programming namespace should go and the plus (+) symbol should be used. Gerard Foley 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I do...--Panic 23:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then let me make a suggestion here: Talk:Ada_Programming/New_Name_needed. Of corse I would expect that a main stream language will draw more votes then just 4 :-(. Still we got a result and anyone is happy with it now. --Krischik T 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we all agree that a rename is in order, I would like to see some names so we can go ahead with a vote on them, even if no other active contributor (author) seems be contributing to this discussion... Just add a list of possible names and I will archive the prev. discussion...--Panic 04:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Votes
All options with redirection from C++ (except the first) and Programming:C_plus_plus. Multiple votes are allowed. Just vote don't discuss, please. Closing day is: 14 March 2006 Closed: --Panic 06:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

 C++ 

(Current books using a similar name: Concurrent Clean, Fortran, Linoleum, Visual Basic .NET, x86 Assembly).

 C++ 2003 

(Just kidding...)

 C++ Programming 

(Current books using a similar name: Ada Programming, Bourne Shell Scripting, C# Programming, Java Programming, REBOL Programming).


 * Krischik T 07:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NickWhaleyIsSexy 02:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Panic 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merrheim 15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ArnTracks 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

C++ Programming Language

Programming in C++

How to Program in C++

The votes are now closed, the book shall be renamed as  C++ Programming  action should be initiated as soon as possible by the proponent (try to use a bot if possible so not to break to many things). I'll move the discussion and the topic to the proper sections in a few days and send/post a message to the parts if no reply is made here so to let them know about the result...--Panic 06:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Move protection
Why is this page protected from moves? Gerard Foley 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I meen the module page not this this page. Gerard Foley 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The page may have been protected by MShonle, I can't remember a reason but probably as result of the merge the book went trough.--Panic 03:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)(edited)--Panic 03:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This thread was moved from the main wikibook main page talk page to the active book talk page, the correction Gerard Foley makes in his comment is not affected by the move.--Panic 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Programming:C plus plus/Hello world, Programming:C_plus_plus/Idioms , Programming:C plus plus/FAQ , Programming:C plus plus/Data Types , Programming:C plus plus/Variables and Expressions are protected--Panic 04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I lifted the protection from those pages, so that any user can move them to their new places. (The protect/unprotect screen gave no reason for the protection; apparently it was before the wiki added a protection log.) --Kernigh 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

IDE's
A section on various IDE's would be nice... FLOSS ones would be especially nice :) I have no programming experience (although I hope to change that) so I'm not sure which ones would be good for someone learning for the first time, or even if IDE's differ that much from one another. Anyway, just an idea. --AK7 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Some IDE information is already present if it grows a stand alone section can be created as it is, it seems to work ok... As for commenting on the IDEs... that doesn't seem possible without using a personal point of view, but you can as users or find on the web other pages that discuss that topic, see the web links section of this book for a place to start ... --Panic 02:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Navigation template
I propose using Template:TopNav or similar minimalistic navigation template to ease navigation throughout the book. Any comments on this? --Orderud 01:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the examples and can't see the any dif. Parts of the book are already using the / format so top navigation is provided by wikipedia, what is the change in your template? --Panic 16:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The links to the next and previous module in the top-right corner makes to easier to navigate through the book. --Orderud 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to add: Your rights
 Your Rights

Contributors will always have the right to RightToFork and the RightToLeave and you must keep in mind Wikibooks Forking policy (we would prefer that you don't but you may find you must).

Proposed: 18 Sept 2005

This are rights given to any author so we should not hide them, they should be made Wikibooks stated policies in the future, why not give this information to future authors ?!?--Panic 02:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks policy nor the GNU FDL require this at all. It's a very bad idea to tell users they have the right to leave before they've even read what the book was about. Also, the information about WEB addresses isn't even appropriate.. MShonle 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this is good as a policy (on this page), but not in the actual book page --Max 02:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think avery effort to clarify the content use and protect authors is welcome, I know that this isn't required by the GFDL (I never said it was), but since the framework of the Wikibooks can make it difficult for a newcomer to obtain the info, the access to it should  facilitated... Max, yes the idea is to keep it on the conventions, it could be more elaborated with the proper references to the Wikipolicies so to facilitate discussion of this and future conventions.--Panic 19:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

New presentation
What about changing the look of the book to have something like this Programmation C or Programmation C++ (debutant) in french sorry. Merrheim 19:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, I think you can do it with no need for a vote on the subject, just add the link to the new display/order on the top next to the single page version of the book or make a selection/entry point menu to the dif. ways a user can access the content and substitute the "cover" page with it. As of using a single finished "look" as the main entry to the book that is another thing (and will probably be voted on as soon as the book "seems" complete, still, we have to remember that this is an ever evolving framework), every reader is a potential contributor to the book, "hiding" the structure/modules and working pages may do more harm than good, the final objective is to have the GFDL content, the visualization or order can have many implementations as we make the content more modular.--Panic 03:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done a new version of the look of this book see Programming:C plus plus/V2 What's your opinion about this (the previous content is automatically include). (Sorry I can not speak english very well) Merrheim 15:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Humm looks great here the problem could be users with a low resolution have you tried it with the basic 800x600 ?--Panic 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC) I think it is possible to have a readable version at each resolution perhaps with small modifications. Merrheim 09:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

An other possibility is Programming:C plus plus/V3. I prefere this one (still under construction)! Merrheim 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A template for C++ Programming Hello I propose to use this kind of template Programming:C plus plus/V3 with a link to the text version. I don't know if you like this. Merrheim 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks nice but it isn't finished, is it ? There are some duplication of links and visual information, I can see C++ Programming in 3+ places at the same time with no benefit to a reader (only a bit confusing). --Panic 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not finish. I will reorganise the plan and correcte the errors. Verify my work please Merrheim 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Any update on this... if not I will move discussion and update links so future contribution to the design can be made...--Panic 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice pages still in the old namespace. I've moved them and fixed links accordingly. Everything should now reside under C++ Programming/V2 and C++ Programming/V3 including the templates that were specific to this book and there should be no pages that refer to the old page names. I've also managed to reduce the number of templates needed for C++ Programming/V3 to just one for the header and chapter listing sidebar. I've also requested speedy deletion of all the old pages since none are needed. --darklama 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this dead... ?--Panic 16:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It would appear so. As you know I just fixed them up some. I only did it in case they were being used still. I wouldn't have any objections to them being removed. Merrheim hasn't contributed any changes since March 20th from the looks of things, so I think its safe to say that Merrheim is probably not going to be contributing any more work to them. --darklama 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposal to add a new look for this book : see V2 or this one V3

I've removed this from the main page as the statement that this would auto-update is not correct and I don't intend on maintaining more that one TOC, it's sad as some users liked the setup. If no one takes charge of it, I'm moving for a deletion.--Panic 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC) - I don't intend on maintaining it either. I'm game for requesting its deletion if you are. If nobody wants to maintain it there really is no need to keep it. --darklama 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets give it more 7 days if no one speaks up we can proceed with the deletion. --Panic 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost time. There is also a GUI one that was being worked on, I think by the same person, that seems to have not been mentioned and is in the same boat as V2 and V3. --darklama 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok darklama will you do it or do you want me to clear them out (there are a set of templates also), the marking for deletion list will include v2, v3 and GUI frameworks, and will include removing references from other pages. --Panic 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they are only self referencing so it should only be a matter of marking the templates for deletion to have them all be so. I'm just wondering if we should mark them for speedy deletion due to general agreement or for Votes for Deletion to give people one last chance to offer to maintain it. --darklama 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ops, to late, just removed tagged them all for delete... Propose a policy to only accept auto maintainable visualizations of the book, or dictate that the maintaining user must be reached within a limited time frame or the view/bookframework will be marked to speedy deletion. Comments.--Panic 01:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its compleatly possible to have auto maintainable visualizations. I think the best we can do is try to limit complexity of different views to ones that are more easly maintained. Such as the two table of contents and print views we got now, but I don't think this is currently going to be a problem since there aren't that many people contributing to this book right now to make this worth having some book convention on. --darklama 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

v2, v3 and GUI have all been deleted along with most of what was left of Programming:C plus plus, Programming: C plus plus, Programming:C -/- -/- and Programming in C plus plus after merging in edit histories for pages that had been copy-pasted. --darklama 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)