Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Talk:intro/abstraction

From cppreference.com
Revision as of 15:47, 19 October 2013 by P12 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

It’s not entirely clear to me why “abstraction” is listed under “classes” on the tutorials page. Even simple language constructs such as if-statements and for-loops are abstractions, though they are not related to classes at all.

--Rightfold (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

While I certainly wouldn't call if- and for-statements abstractions, I agree that abstraction is not really related to classes. I guess it would be a good idea to move it after the part about the STL: At that point the reader knows the important techniques to implement reasonable abstraction himself and we can point to the abstraction-mechanisms inside the standard-library as examples of how it can be done well and what are the advantages of it. --FJW (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
Yes, it's certainly a good idea to show the reader standard library first. --P12 15:47, 19 October 2013 (PDT)