just disappeared today. Actually I'm just curious, what happened to it?

Personally I liked it :).

UPDATE: After discussing this issue with @Lance, I decided to ask the mods to unsynonym from . It was a very useful tag.

closed as off-topic by Undo, Martijn Pieters, Monica Cellio, CRABOLO, ale Dec 7 '14 at 6:21

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – Undo, Martijn Pieters, Monica Cellio, CRABOLO, ale
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I'm curious in your reasoning why string should be kept separate from string-manipulation. How many questions are there about strings that don't involve manipulating or interacting with them in some way? – Cody Gray Jul 7 '11 at 8:06
  • 2
    @Cody: questions regarding string encoding probably deserve string (in addition to encoding) but not string-manipulation. – Joachim Sauer Jul 7 '11 at 8:30
  • @JoachimSauer: Hmm, that's a plausible suggestion. But I still disagree. I think the encoding tag is sufficient there. If I'm interested in questions about encoding, it doesn't matter if the question is about string or character encoding: both are potentially useful to me. – Cody Gray Jul 7 '11 at 8:31
  • @Cody: I'm not entirely convinced myself either ;-) All the examples I could think of include a second tag that kind-of makes string superfluous. parsing might be similar, as would be regex. In essence, string-manipulation implies string construction for me. Parsing/analyzing/... strings is not string-manipulation. – Joachim Sauer Jul 7 '11 at 8:33
  • 1
    @Cody, type questions. – Lance Roberts Jul 7 '11 at 8:45
  • @Cody string is very very general. If we follow this logic, we could wipe out the 90% of tags on SO. To me, string-manipulation is when you are trying to change the contents of a string (or construct a string as @Joachim says). It can be done by regex, simple replacing methods or any other way. The usage of this tag seemed very logical to me, and gave much more information about a question than a simple string tag. – kapa Jul 7 '11 at 9:41
  • @Lance: Questions about string types should probably include a tag identifying the particular language being discussed. String types don't really exist in abstractions outside of a particular framework. And if that's the case, then I don't understand what value the string tag actually adds to the question. – Cody Gray Jul 7 '11 at 9:43
  • 2
    @Cody, I think the string is too vague to be useful, and adds no value. I was just bringing up an example that wasn't string manipulation. – Lance Roberts Jul 7 '11 at 16:08
  • 2
    I also remember this tag fondly -- it earned the taxonomist badge for me once upon a time. But as for the encoding comments: that just another way of manipulating a string. You are manipulating it so that is encoded how you want. The construction comments also imply specific platforms: many platforms still use mutable strings, after all. I think the best example so far is parsing; you might parse a string to create a high-level object and never manipulate the original string at all. – Joel Coehoorn Jul 8 '11 at 3:06

After reading through the comments, I think that should probably be done away with entirely. Having a few more specific tags such as , , seems like a much more useful system of organization that would actually tell people something about the content of the question.

  • 2
    What's wrong with just... "encoding"? (given that there are only five questions on the entire site that even mention internment, we probably don't need to bother creating tags for that) – Shog9 Jul 8 '11 at 3:22
  • @Shog - I wasn't really advocating for those exact tags, I was just trying to think of possible subsets of the current string tag that would be more informative about the tag's scope. – Brad Mace Jul 8 '11 at 3:26
  • 1
    You can usually figure that out from the other tags! I mean... c# is pretty broad too, but only a few foolhardy souls suggest divvying it up into subsets based on usage. – Shog9 Jul 8 '11 at 3:28
  • @Shog9: The argument is that (unlike c#) string doesn't really mean much about the question, since practically any non-trivial program uses strings somewhere. It would be like having a tag for "program" or "computer", though less extreme. – Mechanical snail Aug 21 '11 at 6:23
  • @Mechanical: there's a difference between most programs using strings somewhere and using them in a context that applies to the question. Plenty of questions that have nothing to do with strings. Better analogy might be math, something crucial to every program ever, but not the focus of every question. – Shog9 Aug 21 '11 at 6:28

I don't support this. If you could explain the difference between a question tagged string, and one tagged string-manipulation, that would be a start in making your case for it.

  • 1
    If anything, I would think string is a synonym for string-manipulation, rather than vice versa. – Joel Coehoorn Jul 8 '11 at 3:07
  • 1
    @Joel: you're probably right, but either way there's no need for separate tags. And... "string" is shorter. – Shog9 Jul 8 '11 at 3:20

Somebody decided to synonym it to , which doesn't seem right, but it's done now.

I thought it was a good tag to narrow down the exact sphere of programming you were looking for.

  • Hm, that sounds very strange. Can anything be done about this? – kapa Jul 7 '11 at 7:49
  • @baz, you can appeal to the mods to unsynonym it. Maybe turn this question into a request. Use the tags support and synonym-request. – Lance Roberts Jul 7 '11 at 7:51
  • Thanks @Lance, haven't used Meta a lot. I will do that. – kapa Jul 7 '11 at 7:54

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