ASCII chart under C/C++ | Language?
ASCII is neither a part of the language standards nor required by them, but on this site the ASCII chart is listed under the Language sections of C/C++. This is incorrect and misleading. 22.214.171.124 15:32, 23 February 2014 (PST)
- Yeah, it's kind of a historical artifact. I think I'd be okay with deleting it -- there are plenty of ASCII tables on the net, this one doesn't really add anything new, and (as you say) it risks confusing people into thinking that it's somehow part of the language spec. --Nate (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2014 (PST)
- Technically, C++ standard makes references to ISO 10646 and specifically its ASCII subset, but only in very limited scope, e.g. when talking about \x and \u escape sequences or (in the C standard included by proxy) when talking about narrow character classification functions. I do agree that there are other websites that describe Unicode (or its ASCII subset) pretty well already. --Cubbi (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2014 (PST)
- I agree that having the chart under 'Language' heading is a bit confusing. On the other hand I think that it's worth to keep it since its usefulness, however small, does outweigh the cost of keeping it. The analytics data say that the page has been accessed a bit more than thousand times last month -- it has roughly the same popularity as pages about strcpy or memset, for example. --P12 10:09, 26 February 2014 (PST)
 This looks horrible
http://puu.sh/6MxFe.png Especially the underscores on the bottom right being in the line below them.
- I agree that the underscores a little sub-optimal, and that's something that we might be able to adjust. Is there anything else that is specifically objectionable? --Nate (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2014 (PST)
 Scrolling in examples
Currently long examples are not very convenient, since it's not possible to see the output of code at the beginning of the example without scrolling down. Wouldn't it be a good idea to limit the maximum height of the 'example' element by adding a scrollbar? I'm thinking about something like what's currently shown once the 'run' button is pressed. --P12 08:17, 11 January 2014 (PST)
- I wonder if the problem is that we have examples that require scrolling in the first place, as opposed to something shorter that can be viewed without scrolling. Could this be an argument for multiple shorter examples in certain places? Also, do you have a specific long example that you were thinking of? -Nate (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2014 (PST)
- Comparatively long examples are quite common. Even this one spans entire screen on my browser, that makes direct comparison between code need scrolling up and down constantly (zooming out helps though).
- As for multiple examples, I agree, though perhaps it makes sense to move additional examples to the book project and only add links to them. I expect that eventually the book project will contain large collection of examples for each feature of the library. --P12 01:33, 15 January 2014 (PST)
- I agree that the regex example reaches the edge of what I'd consider acceptable length. (My metric is "will it fit on my 13 inch MBA screen".) I'm not a big fan of the UX that inner scrollbars provide (most likely because some sites seem to overuse them, *cough* G+ *cough*) but I can certainly understand wanting to be able to see both the example and the output.
- Perhaps we could turn on a max-height scrollbar and also work to split any examples that trigger it into multiple chunks, when possible. Any pages that start to accrue too much example material would then be potential candidates for partial migration to the book project. --Nate (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2014 (PST)
- Agreed. --P12 08:09, 15 January 2014 (PST)
- Someone was recently arguing at SO against extensive examples at reference sites -- I don't really agree: my ideal reference would show how the subject of the article could appear in an actual C++ program (which is why I feel awkward about examples like std::mutex that call mutex.lock() in a situation other than the constructor of a RAII guard class), important corner cases (who besides us shows the nested std::bind? I know a team that uses it a lot), and push the envelope where possible (like the sorts I added in my first days here to std::rotate and std::iter_swap). Sometimes realistic use requires a lot of code to demonstrate: I consider my example for std::ios_base::register_callback to be over-simplified even though I bet it won't fit on Nate's screen, but I feel that code that just calls that function and does nothing realistic (cplusplus.com MSDN would just lead the readers to believe it's pointless. Although I would agree that if the book project has an "advanced I/O streams" section, it could have a home there with a link from the ref page. --Cubbi (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2014 (PST)
- I agree, examples are very useful for understanding how a feature can or should be used. One of the reasons for the book project was that if there is no requirement of conciseness, then we can have as extensive explanation and as many examples as we want. Then we can link to the relevant sections of the book project from the reference and vice-versa and have the best of both. --P12 23:49, 17 January 2014 (PST)
 Style of <code> elements
Isn't the following style more readable: code? --P12 01:41, 15 January 2014 (PST)vs
- For the word "code" by itself I kinda like it. :) Are you proposing that we change the "c" template to have that style? Since this change adds a bit more visual noise, it might be good to consider how it looks in a busier context, like on regex/basic_regex or algorithm/find. --Nate (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2014 (PST)
- Here's a busy testcase:
- It actually seems to reduce visual noise while still highlighting code snippets well enough for reading. --P12 08:04, 15 January 2014 (PST)
 Links to HTML version of the standard drafts
Does anyone know something like this just containing a more up-to-date draft? We could link to such resource from the references section. If the URL structure is appropriate the linking could be completely automatic. --P12 14:45, 18 February 2014 (PST)
- I can't get to that page right now, but assuming that it is a HTML version of the standard, it's possible that we could generate our own from github.com/cplusplus/draft using something like Latex2HTML (or one of the other LaTeX -> HTML translators). --Nate (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2014 (PST)
- The problem is that C++ standard drafts are copyrighted and contain the following notice:
- This ISO document is a working draft or committee draft and is copyright-protected by ISO. While the reproduction of working drafts or committee drafts in any form for use by participants in the ISO standards development process is permitted without prior permission from ISO, neither this document nor any extract from it may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form for any other purpose without prior written permission from ISO.
- I asked Herb about this, and unfortunately it seems pretty clear that the copyright that the ISO holds on this material will prevent us from generating our own copy. One possibility that he raised, however, is linking to the github source -- we're not sure if it's desirable or even possible, but it seemed worth mentioning here. --Nate (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2014 (PST)
- Wouldn't hosting generated HTML on github be another solution? IANAL, but the github source and the resulting HTML should have the same copyright protection, so in principle it should be possible to for them to set up another repository under the C++ committee github organization umbrella and provide access to it via github pages. Of course, this means that certain amount of cooperation from the C++ committee is needed, but perhaps an accessible up-to-date HTML copy would be useful for them too as it would be much easier to spot the bugs for the outsiders. --P12 20:35, 21 February 2014 (PST)
- Apparently that won't fly either: the ISO itself (not isocpp.org) is really the only body that controls this material. Herb mentioned the possibility of linking to the various proposals that are out there, but that has the downsides of being non-authoratative and worryingly ephemeral. It's a good idea, but I can't see how it could work well for us. :( --Nate (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2014 (PST)
- Indeed, that's unfortunate. --P12 10:10, 26 February 2014 (PST)
 Experimental standard libraries
I think it's worth start to document the experimental standard libraries. The namespaces and header names seem to be already decided on and are unlikely to change. The following is my suggestion of how everything could be organized:
- A new row is added to the main page just above the useful links and C++ libraries row. The libraries are listed in similar style as the libraries that have already made into the standard.
- All experimental libraries are placed under cpp/experimental/*, where * identifies the library, e.g. fs for filesystem, optional for optional, etc.
- Since the
std::experimentalnamespace is long and some libraries are put into children namespaces, we won't be able to consistently follow our policy of always qualifying all names. I suggest to relax it; a full proposal is below.
- All dcl items will have markers like (filesystem TS). We may even want to make links from them to a description somewhere.
- The specification always follows the most recent draft (unless the draft is ratified in some way).
- Once the functionality is included into the standard, we add a second description of all functionality. A notice is added to the old pages: "The functionality was included into C++XX with the following changes: XX, YY, ZZ". This separation would reduce the clutter on the new standard. While the same can be said about changes between standards, I expect that much fewer people will be interested in changes between the standard and experimental specifications.
Any opinions? --P12 17:19, 4 March 2014 (PST)
- I would certainly like to see the new TS specs made available here - this looks like a reasonable plan of action. --Cubbi (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2014 (PST)
- This sounds reasonable. My only concern is that the TS items could be confused with standard items, but I suspect that can be addressed with appropriate visual cues. Perhaps we could make (filesystem TS) appear in a different color and include some sort of similar color change on all pages under experimental/? --Nate (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (PST)
- Does this mean we can add the Decimal TR now, too? People are working on its new version, which will be a Decimal TS, but its 2011 ISO TR form already saw some limited support. (for consistency, its path would probably best be experimental/? too, even though the namespace is std::decimal) --Cubbi (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2014 (PST)
- I guess so... Are there large differences between the TR and TS? --P12 12:00, 5 March 2014 (PST)
 Relaxing the policy of always qualifying all names
Inclusion of experimental libraries will result in some components that have very long fully qualified names, e.g.
std::experimental::filesystem::recursive_directory_iterator (extreme case). This makes following our policy of always qualifying all names not practical to follow consistently.
Also, one of the original reasons for full qualifications will disappear in the near future. I'm developing a new syntax highlighting plugin that will correctly make links to names even without qualification. So even the
std:: prefix will become not strictly needed for practical purposes.
My proposal is as follows:
- The page title will carry fully qualified name as before
- Examples and "possible implementation" sections will contain qualified names (possibly using namespace aliases) as before.
- Any other uses (including declaration in dcl items) will use unqualified names.
- At the beginning this relaxation will only apply for the experimental features. Once the new syntax highlighting plugin goes live we can remove the
What do everyone think? --P12 17:19, 4 March 2014 (PST)
- I think having syntax highlighting for shortened names will be great for long names like your recursive_directory_iterator example. How about we begin by using shortened names in new content when they would otherwise be awkward and see how it looks? (It's less clear to me how much of a win it would be to change e.g. std::vector to vector.) --Nate (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (PST)