From where do these "equivalent" descriptions come?

[xuinkrbin]

Looking at the articles http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/shuffle/ and http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/random_shuffle/, One sees an assertion such functions are "equivalent to" a given description. What is the source for these "equivalent" descriptions because such descriptions do not appear in any copy of the C++ standards I have. For the record, I have copies of the 2003 and 2011 standards and I am pretty sure I have a copy of the 1998 standard around here somewhere.

[Cubbi]

The rival website calls these "possible implementation" http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/random_shuffle

[BHX]

Cubbi wrote:

The rival website calls these "possible implementation" http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/random_shuffle

I wouldn't even begin to call that site a rival website.
This is what I understand rivalry to be:

A person (or in this case site) who is competing for the same object or goal as another, or who tries to equal or outdo another; competitor.

The only thing both sites have in common are the reference part. Our site has tutorials, articles, a reference, and the forums for programmers to get and give advice and help. That site has a reference only.

There is really no rival for Cplusplus.com because most other sites either cover less or more than this site does. For example, Cprogramming.com is close, but they cover C, C++, game programming, and trying to add a Java tutorial. There is no site that I can think of right this moment that would be remotely close to being a "rival" to this site. Even if there was, the rivalry would be in the minds of the users and not the creators of the site.

[Cubbi]

You're taking things too seriously, BHX Specter (and yes, there is rivalry in the eyes of the users of the references, I see it quite often on Stack Overflow)

For a better answer, unless the standard actually says that something "is equivalent to" or "behaves as" a piece of code (see for example std::put_time in C++11's 27.7.5[ext.manip]/10), it is either made up by whoever wrote the page or copied, with possible modifications, from STL or from another non-normative source.

You could ask the admin, in case they remember, but I wouldn't count on it. For example, I wrote the possible implementation of shuffle on cppreference and I don't remember now how it started. It went through quite a few edits since then anyway.

[BHX]

Cubbi wrote:

You're taking things too seriously,

No, if I was taking it too seriously I would have listed off every site that has C++ references and rant about how they couldn't hold a candle to ours and want to ruin this site. The only rivalry I would even entertain would be one of all C++ sites trying to get Bjarne Stroustrup's approval and recommendation as well as the rest of the committee's approval and recommendation for being the de facto C++ reference site or helpful site.

Cubbi wrote:

BHX Specter (and yes, there is rivalry in the eyes of the users of the references, I see it quite often on Stack Overflow)

I don't give any thought to the user's machinations of some lofty rivalry because, in the end, it is just their illusion and has no groundings with the site admins. That is akin to how C programmers and C++ programmers have it in their head that Ritchie and Stroustrup were bitter rivals, but in truth were good friends and spent time with each other outside work.

Cubbi wrote:

For a better answer, unless the standard actually says that something "is equivalent to" or "behaves as" a piece of code (see for example std::put_time in C++11's 27.7.5[ext.manip]/10), it is either made up by whoever wrote the page or copied, with possible modifications, from STL or from another non-normative source.

That is why I don't use any other reference outside of Stroustrup's book because there is little to no chance of "made up" or "modified" code or standard. I wish his book was cheaper for people to afford as most don't have the opportunity to get it due to personal or financial problems.

[Lachlan Easton]

Though if you're going through Stroustrup's book (I'm assuming you mean The C++ Programming Language) you should keep an errata page close to hand, though I can't find one for the 4th edition :P

[BHX]

With Stroustrup, I have A Tour of C++, The C++ Programming Language 4th ed, and Programming: Principles and Practices Using C++ 2nd ed. (Stroustrup fanboy)