Talk:C++ Standard Library
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the C++ Standard Library article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
In the sentence "In C++, the Standard Library is a collection of classes and functions, which are written in the core language. The Standard Library provides several generic containers, functions to utilise and manipulate these containers, function objects, generic strings and streams (including interactive and file " the "to utilise" looks to be a typo, isn't it?--184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks to be an accepted spelling variant, though I′m sure “use” would suffice. I say just don′t get caught in a
do-whilstloop over it. ―AoV² 10:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- What makes you say it's a typo? Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I recently have nominated the accompanying Category:C++ standard library for renaming, to match the article title. However I′m open to the suggestion that the article should be lower-cased to match the category instead. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 16#Category:C++ standard library. ―AoV² 10:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've commented there.
decltype(talk) 11:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And for the reasons I outlined there, I propose the article to be moved to C++ standard library.
decltype(talk) 15:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
C++ Standard Library vs STL
The article: "Although the C++ Standard Library and the STL share many features, neither is a strict superset of the other" makes it sound that they are two similar but not exactly the same. The side bar gives the impression they are not the same at all:
The "C++ Standard Library" constains all streams, the C Standard Library, and then also contains the STL, which contains all the rest.
Also, most of the information in the body of the article is redundant with the info from Standard Template Library. I think it should be made clearer who is a part of what. And if the STL is a part of the C++ Standard Library, then some merging needs to be done. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's *not* "a part of the C++ Standard Library". The term "STL" has fallen into the vernacular to refer to those parts of the C++ Standard Library that were based on the STL, but to begin merging the two articles would be a backwards step. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Reorganization of the articles about C++ containers
Currently there's quite a lot of mess in the articles about C++ containers. A lot of content is duplicated across articles about similar containers. Also, we have quite much material that is reference manual-like or too detailed. I think the situation could be improved by reorganization. My suggestion is that we implement the same structure as in the C++ standard:
- Sequence containers (C++) -
- Associative containers (C++) -
- Unordered associative containers (C++) -
- Container adaptors (C++) -
Since each article would cover similar containers, there would be quite less content duplication. The quality of the articles would increase, since the material such as differences among containers could be covered in one place. Lastly, the WP:NOTMANUAL issue would be reduced: the function listings could be merged (I think we could have tables similar to , just not for all containers at once and maybe using different style), the functionality itself could be compared, and examples merged. Any thoughts? 1exec1 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree for merging all these articles as User:1exec1 proposes. Recently I had a kind of dispute concerning WP:NOTMANUAL about code in the article Queue (abstract data type), where all the code examples of queue has been removed: . Adding code - examples demonstrating a container is valuable. Having a workable example a reader can evaluate what has been reading in the article and the article is not becoming a manual. Ggia (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've merged the first batch of articles. Please see how it looks. The target page needs quite a lot of copy-editing and cleanup now, though the main ideas have been implemented. 1exec1 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)