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 .TXT (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.

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 .

Programming:C plus plus/Other Related Wikibooks

--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.

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 <noinclude> tags. A navigational template will follow

Proposed: 21 Sept 2005

Given this idea I've tried <noinclude> 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 <noinclude></noinclude> 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 <noinclude>{{:Template|prev chapter name|next chapter name}}</noinclude> on every page. Either on the top, the bottom or both.

Comments? --Max 04:40, 22 September 2005 (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.… —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 -/- -/-

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#Historical_conventions 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 Wikibooks: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#Votes. 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)

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)