Timeline for Should we refer to the C++ Core Guidelines?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2016 at 15:06 | comment | added | nhgrif | I'd make the case that Apple's guidelines regarding the development of iOS applications are as solid and closely intertwined as any set of guidelines and development communities could possibly be (if Apple goes away... so does iOS...). Yet I still expect anything that references any Apple guidelines to stand alone as an answer. | |
| Mar 19, 2016 at 15:02 | comment | added | Nobody moving away from SE | I thought I read that the reference numbers would remain once they were assigned. Also, seeing how deeply embedded this project is into the C++ community I would state that it will only vanish together with the community. Finally, my intention is exactly this: further reading. (Also read my addition to the question for more clarity on what I mean.) | |
| Mar 19, 2016 at 14:47 | comment | added | nhgrif | The number of the guideline should not change in the same way that links should not rot. The guideline could be restructured, completely removed from the Internet, or go away entirely. Answers should stand on their own and links should exist for further reading on the topic. | |
| Mar 19, 2016 at 14:45 | comment | added | Nobody moving away from SE | Maybe that was not clear from my question but the intention is not to make answers a pure list of links to these guidelines. The offending code should definitely be named and probably be rewritten in corrected form. The idea is to add an explanation via that link (and further material) to avoid plastering answers with long winded explanations and to have a credible source for your claims. Furthermore, adding the number of the guideline (which should not change) work around link rot. | |
| Mar 19, 2016 at 13:35 | history | answered | nhgrif | CC BY-SA 3.0 |