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.

• 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.

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)

So to talk dates:

• 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?

--Max 21:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 {{:Programming:C_plus_plus/Foo}} to transclude it. It will also include this {{:Programming:C_plus_plus/Navigation}} 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)

Templates

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

wrongtitle {{wrongtitle|title=Programmming: C++}}
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Template:Wrongtitle used to state:

TODO {{TODO|todonote=text of the ToDo task...}}
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Template:TODO used to state:

To do:

Navigational "Template" (not a real wiki template)

Paddu has added an example:

{|talign=center
!colspan=2|Other wikibooks that you<br>might be interested in:>
|->
|Languages:>
|[[Programming:C|C]] - [[Programming:Java|Java]]>
|->
|C++ Libraries:>
|[[Programming:Boost|Boost]] - [[Programming:MFC|MFC]]>
|}

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:

 		{{Programming:_C_-/-_-/-_Foreword}}
 		----
 		{{Programming:_C_-/-_-/-_External_Links}}

this is now been implemented on part of the work.

List {{:Programming:_C_-/-_-/-_Other}} {{:Programming:_C_-/-_-/-_Foreword}}

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

P1 - Common Programming Errors

Paddu said "It would be nice to point out some common programming errors, pitfalls and the like by highlighting it.", 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...

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

 ?

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 Wikibooks: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 Wikibooks: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

done with (You can copy-paste):

<div style="margin: 10px; padding: 5px; border: 1px solid red;">
;(TODO: <desc.>)
</div>

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

{| WIDTH="95%"
| style="background-color: #f2fff2; border: solid 1px #bfffbf; padding: 1em;" valign=top|
NOTE:
|}

I had it centred but now I can't remember how I did it maybe <div align=center></div>
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)

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 here. 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.… —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 Wikibooks:Naming policy. The current name is running under WB:NP#Historical_conventions. 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#Historical_conventions 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)

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 Wikibooks: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 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 {{:Programming:_C_-/-_-/-_Other}} ? 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)