Talk:C++ Standard Library

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

C/C++ Unassessed Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

What does "std" stand for?

I havn't found an answer just what the three letters "std" of the standard C(++) library stand for. Anyone know? Seems like a good article should say so. :-)

Regards, Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.205.47 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it is an abbreviation for Standard Template Definition, but that was in a programming class a few years ago; I have no source of evidence that is what it means and google the phrase in quotes returned no results so I am not confident enough that is the case to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.150.76 (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I′m almost certain it stands only for standard, cf. “cstdlib” (a.k.a. “stdlib.h”) which predates the use of templates. One should not confuse this with “stl” which does indeed pertain to templates. ―AoV² 10:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

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?--88.149.155.35 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be an accepted spelling variant, though I′m sure “use” would suffice. I say just don′t get caught in a do-whilst loop over it. ―AoV² 10:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say it's a typo? Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper capitalisation

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)[reply]

I've commented there. decltype (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~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)~~[reply]

For the sake of consensus I will switch to support renaming the category. While the upcoming standard will refer to it in lower case, the principal third-party sources (Josuttis and Becker) use the capitalized form in their book titles. decltype (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 82.150.248.28 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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++) - array, vector, list, forward_list, deque,
Associative containers (C++) - map, set, multimap, multiset
Unordered associative containers (C++) - unordered_map, unordered_set, unordered_multimap, unordered_multiset
Container adaptors (C++) - queue, stack, priority_queue

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 [1], 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)[reply]