Talk:Libcwd

ostreams

It is not clear what is meant by "ostreams". Does this refer to an iostream? -- Beland 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ostream (short for "output stream") is a class from the C++ standard iostream library. iostream can refer to that library or to another class (also from that library) which inherits from both ostream and istream.

See e.g. http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/iostream/ostream/ and http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/iostream/ --Das-g (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libcwd is for debug OUTPUT. There is no input (stream) concept relevant for this subject (or library). So yes, 'ostream' refers to classes derived from std::ostream, the C++ output stream interface -- Carlo Wood (talk)

Issues

   It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Tagged since April 2011.

There is only one source on this subject?

   It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since April 2011.

I don't think this is the case anymore; I just read it, and I didn't even recognize the article as something I wrote myself.

   It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject. Tagged since April 2011.

I just wrote the original version, since any article about libcwd was missing completely. I haven't editted it since. I'm not saying I am not biased (personally I think libcwd is just awesome), but it was never my intention to write it as an "advertisement" (that feels like an insult). Libcwd is a free open source library that I am making no money off. If entries about existing free software do not belong on wikipedia than I'll be glad to remove it again. Again, I just read the article and I didn't see anything (anymore) that makes it sound not neutral. It came accross as a very good and to the point article and I wondered who had written it - lol

   It is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Tagged since December 2007.

It has been editted many times since my first version. Is this still true according to anyone?

   It may contain original research. Tagged since April 2011.

That tag seems to conflict with the one saying it's based on a single source :p. Of any (open source) library there is only one. And in some case, like this one, there is only one author. Being that author, I'm the only real authority on the case, except for users who build up considerable experience by using the library. The only reliable PUBLISHED source for this library is it's home page however (there are a zillion other webpages about libcwd, but they do nothing but literally copy text that I wrote and is also published on the home page, or on source forge - where I did the releases). Nevertheless, this tag is wrong; the article contains no NEW thoughts (original "research"), it only contains facts that have been published before as part of the documentation that comes with the topic that this article is about; it doesn't get any more reliable, published and directly related to the topic of the article than that.

Not going to edit a single word in this article anymore, Carlo Wood (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libcwd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228074555/http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlo17/ to http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlo17/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]