Me again with my usual rant
So C++11 was approved in August 2011 and comes with TR1 and more additions, like the forgotten std::copy_if() algorithm and one that I just heard about today called std::is_sorted().
So what does this mean? It means that this website's Reference section is being left behind. And it is too bad because I just LOVE it! It has been my ONLY C++ STL reference for quite some time now. The only thing I think it is missing: A CLEAR indication of the file to #include for the specified class or function. Take MSDN Online as an example. It will always tell you which header to include and which library to link against.
But reality is pounding me here: TR1 was released, added to compilers the world over (including my all-time favorite Visual Studio, back then v2008) and this site's owner refused to include any documentation on it. So I was forced to read ill-conceived reference documents found elsewhere when I wanted to learn about std::tr1::tuple, for example.
Now the STL has grown considerably and guess what: Reference has not. Soooooo, where is the $#%!@*! owner of this website? Is he/she asleep? At this pace I'm seriously thinking about competing against this website myself!
So come on!! Wake up, please!!! I like very much this site's documentation as long as it keeps updated. Will you do it if I say "pretty please with a cherry on top" ??
So what does this mean? It means that this website's Reference section is being left behind. And it is too bad because I just LOVE it! It has been my ONLY C++ STL reference for quite some time now. The only thing I think it is missing: A CLEAR indication of the file to #include for the specified class or function. Take MSDN Online as an example. It will always tell you which header to include and which library to link against.
But reality is pounding me here: TR1 was released, added to compilers the world over (including my all-time favorite Visual Studio, back then v2008) and this site's owner refused to include any documentation on it. So I was forced to read ill-conceived reference documents found elsewhere when I wanted to learn about std::tr1::tuple, for example.
Now the STL has grown considerably and guess what: Reference has not. Soooooo, where is the $#%!@*! owner of this website? Is he/she asleep? At this pace I'm seriously thinking about competing against this website myself!
So come on!! Wake up, please!!! I like very much this site's documentation as long as it keeps updated. Will you do it if I say "pretty please with a cherry on top" ??
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp is an incomplete, wiki-like alternative to this site.
I also like that it offers downloadable archives, whereas if you try to wget this site's Reference you'll bump into filename issues (on Windows at least).
I optimistically believe that the admin has a "all or nothing" strategy, which is why he takes so long.
In which case, he must update the Documentation section too.
I also like that it offers downloadable archives, whereas if you try to wget this site's Reference you'll bump into filename issues (on Windows at least).
I optimistically believe that the admin has a "all or nothing" strategy, which is why he takes so long.
In which case, he must update the Documentation section too.
You could always help make http://cppreference.com more complete while waiting on the admin here. Perhaps when it is complete enough to be considered competition, both sites will have greater incentive to improve.
Thanks for the reference, Catfish. It is nice. For sure nicer in the tuple part that I had to read elsewhere.
Now I got a new C++ reference link in my Faves. You are bringing this on yourself, cplusplus.com! :-(
Now I got a new C++ reference link in my Faves. You are bringing this on yourself, cplusplus.com! :-(
This website does tell you what header to include. For example, a few days ago I forgot what header std::pair was defined in. I searched this website, and in the top right on this page: http://cplusplus.com/reference/std/utility/pair/ it said <utility>
It doesn't specify the headers clearly (note that I said "cleary"; I never said it doesn't say at all). Besides, there are pages where you just don't have it. Example: http://cplusplus.com/reference/iostream/istringstream/ .
Besides, if you know how to use the function, but just don't remember the header, you shouldn't be forced to read paragraphs in order to find out. It should be clearly stated somewhere in a consistent way throughout the documentation.
Besides, if you know how to use the function, but just don't remember the header, you shouldn't be forced to read paragraphs in order to find out. It should be clearly stated somewhere in a consistent way throughout the documentation.
So there's nobody like me who just reads the Doxygen-generated documentation off the libstdc++ site and understands what it all means?
-Albatross
-Albatross
| So there's nobody like me who just reads the Doxygen-generated documentation off the libstdc++ site and understands what it all means? |
Is that the fear of not knowing... or the pleasure of solving riddles?
I wouldn't want to consider a third possibility.
It says <sstream> in the same place on that page you listed, I don't know what you're saying. I see your point anyhow, but since I know where to look, it's never posed a problem for me.
LOL!!! I found the header name in the upper right corner of the page!! That is soooo NOT clear man. At home I use a 22" monitor, wide screen, and at work a 24" also wide! The maximized browser moves the darn header name wayyy off the main attraction. Plus it is written in a smaller font. Geee.
If I may: Very bad place to put such an important piece of data.
If I may: Very bad place to put such an important piece of data.
To the OP: I'd suggest changing the title of this thread so that it might actually attract twicker's attention. :)
-Albatross
-Albatross
Last edited on
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
twicker tends to come and go. I think last time he came, he granted us awesome articles and broke the login cookies. I'm often told I'm logged in when I'm not T.T.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.