Possible Duplicate:
Please remove the [c++11] tag synonym

There had been several related discussions here around the question whether the c++0x tag should become a synonym of the c++11 tag. The way I interpreted the results (and the discussions of the same topic in the C++ chat room) it was mostly agreed upon to wait until C++11 is official. (I disagree with that, BTW, but that's irrelevant here.)

Now someone made the c++11 tag a synonym of the c++0x tag. (Note: That's the opposite.) Of course, that's stupid, because 5 years from now nobody will be speaking about "C++0x" anymore. It seems the C++ chat room opinions are pretty alike here. (Not surprisingly. How many of you are still discussing "Longhorn"?) Also, the "culprit" admitted that the effect intended was the exact opposite of what he proposed and people voted for.1

So, the synonyms as they are setup now are wrong, they should be the other way around, and I think many wanted to wait with setting up synonyms until C++ is officially released.
Can we please revert this?

1 There's a real usability problem in this. It seems "synonyms" are usually assumed to be mutually interchangeable. However, here on SO they are directed. The discussions in the C++ chat room about that revealed that just about everyone who got in touch with the concept first got confused about that.

share|improve this question
What's changed since this question was asked? Everyone's blaming the tag system, when the real problem seems to be strong disagreement between the expert users. –  Cody Gray May 30 '11 at 14:02
@Cody: Please read again. That synonym is considered an error by the user who proposed it. He did it accidentally, and I bet most, if not all, of those who voted for it also confused the direction this works now. This makes just as much sense (none) as making vista a synonym of longhorn on SU. –  sbi May 30 '11 at 18:20
I agree wholeheartedly with sbi, the synonym should be removed. –  FredOverflow May 31 '11 at 19:25
I agree with sbi. This is silly. –  Lightness Races in Orbit Jun 25 '11 at 19:06
Thanks, @random! –  sbi Aug 25 '11 at 18:31
Synonyms are directed only in the meaning of "A has more uses than B". The meaning of A and B are not different and the direction does not express a relation on their meaning, but only a relation on the use of the spellings. So SO synonyms are really the "usual" synonyms people know - they can be used interchangeably. –  Johannes Schaub - litb Sep 9 '11 at 22:58
I DO think c++11 should have become a synonym of c++0x. Neither is more "official" than the other (the official name is "ISO/IEC 14882:2011"), and C++0x has much more widespread use. –  Ben Voigt Sep 16 '11 at 15:17
add comment

marked as duplicate by sbi, random Aug 25 '11 at 12:52

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

2 Answers

There is no C++11 yet. Once there is, this should definitely be reverted, even flipped.

Until C++11 is officially standardized (expected some months hence), I'm fine with this synonym: I'm not particularly in favor of it, but I see it as causing the least confusion, for now, out of all the alternatives.

share|improve this answer
Why? Shouldn't the synonym association just be removed entirely until the standardization is complete? –  jalf May 30 '11 at 12:07
@jalf: "I do not think that keeping the two tags separate serves any useful purpose," as Jerry Coffin put it. Or even "Trying to enforce some kind of separation [between [c++11] and [c++0x] tags] is only going to lead to confusion in the long term." Which you said on that same question. ;) –  Fred Nurk May 30 '11 at 12:09
It's still stupid to make c++11 a synonym of c++0x, because the latter was a temporary name that's going to vanish pretty soon. SO would be the last place on the whole Internet still using the obsolete name in its tags. Yes, it's not absolutely sure that the next standard will become C++11, which is why I (grudgingly) agreed to defer making c++0x a synonym of c++11. But the other way around is just plain stupid, and it seems the majority of the chat room agreed with that. –  sbi May 30 '11 at 18:24
@sbi: [c++0x] is an established tag with over eleven hundred questions. People may already be watching it, have it in tag sets/feeds, and are definitely used to using it. There are only 31 uses of [c++11]. What is the value of changing the dominant tag prematurely? Unless you beat me to it, I'll lead the charge to change tag synonyms once the standard is published. Until then, what's the difference between using a synonym and not using the tag in favor of [c++0x]? (Answer: one is automated and the other causes confusion.) –  Fred Nurk May 30 '11 at 19:03
The number of questions already asked in a tag is irrelevant here, because those questions won't be affected. That leaves that, when someone tries to tag something c++11, they'll end up with c++0x. Which is just plain wrong. As Jerry explained in a comment to his own answer, "C++11" is the right name for the next C++ standard, even if its official release would be delayed. –  sbi May 30 '11 at 19:15
add comment

It is less likely that anything in use from the current C++0x standard will change, because that would invalidate code and compilations that are already in place. So in a sense, there is a set of code that is necessarily C++11, even though it doesn't exist as a standard.

At the same time, there are topics that are C++0x, because the remaining parts of the standard not yet implemented could actually change, at which point someone looking at the question tagged as C++11 would conceivably downvote as it the question might become irrelevant. However, people viewing the C++0x have to assume that information can become irrelevant as the standard changes.

However, if in fact the standard completes, there would no longer be a C++0x as long as any "newer" in progress standard is named differently.

Questions about non-standardized material from C++0x is only relevant while C++0x is in development, and the tag should reflect the time-relative nature.

So in short, I believe neither should be a synonym for the above reasons.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .