Talk:cpp/links

The current todo on the page should definitely be gotten around to, I think the only things we should include here are libraries and other documentation, no make, build, ide's etc. Just pure c++. Alexhairyman 09:48, 29 April 2012 (PDT)

[edit] Too much fancy formatting?

I think using simple list results in more readability. Compare: tdcl list -- simple list. What do others think? -- P12 12:43, 28 April 2012 (PDT)

Discussions about aesthetics are always fun.  :) So one argument that I see for the current version is that we have similar lists all over the site, e.g. cpp/algorithm or cpp/header. Consistency is good. What makes this page different? If we use bullets here, should we use bullets everywhere? --Nate 07:14, 29 April 2012 (PDT)

Just my two cents, but I think that the tcdl lists look better, and consistency is good. --- Undeterminant 08:24, 29 April 2012 (PDT)

agreed, the tdcl lists make it easier to read the library descriptions Alexhairyman 09:43, 29 April 2012 (PDT)

My opinion is that in this case horizontal separators don't serve much purpose, yet add additional clutter. By contrast, in the rest of the wiki we use horizontal separators for content that almost universally falls into two categories: a) tabular data (name <-> description or code <-> num <-> standard version); b) lots of function definitions which would otherwise be hard to visually separate. The separators are worthwhile in these cases. However, here, it seems, the separators would offer only consistency, while reducing (IMO) readability.

As for scope, I would limit bulleted lists to cpp/links, c/language plus subpages and cpp/language plus subpages. The reasoning is that we don't have any tabular data there, so there's little advantage of emphasizing the organization of data. -- P12 13:09, 29 April 2012 (PDT)

I prefer the plain list. This list does not have strict distinction between link and description and I don't think it needs the same style as other lists since it doesn't contain language features. --