Talk:Variadic template

Original Research Removal

I have removed the original research about what "some people" think is missing from the C++0x version of Variadic Templates. Only one source was citied, and it is from a discussion forum that originated these ideas.

I would point out that this article was written specifically in response to my removal of this same information from the C++0x article section on variadic templates. Wikipedia is simply not the place for that kind of thing, period. If it goes into C++0x (not likely), then we can put it somewhere. If it is on-tap for being put into the next version of C++, then we can put it in an appropriate article. But a list of what "some people" think ought to have been in C++0x is not something that Wikipedia should have. Korval (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - I did not realize that wikipedia was not the forum for this. I felt it should be a record of what will very likely be a proposal for a TR to C++0x (especially since one of the creators of the variadic proposal was involved in the discussion on comp.std.c++ and a couple of these features were part of the initial proposal) so work will not be repeated - the features are desirable and every attempt will be made to include them in C++1x or a TR. When you removed it from the C++0x page, I thought you were merely saying that since this is not to be included in C++0x it is irrelevant for the page. I think there is some value in pointing out the limitations of the C++0x variadic tmeplates implementation - but that can be done by merely stating those limitations. It would have been nice had you added what you thought was relevant information about variadic templates, instead of just snipping information that some would consider is marginally relevant. Faisalvali (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether it "will very likely" be a proposal for a TR to C++0x or not is irrelevant; Modules will "very likely" be a TR proposal too, and there is even a line of C++0x proposals for them. But until it actually gets into something even semi-official, it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. Korval (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You've focused on the most unresponse-worthy part of my post: my initial rationalization for including the material. Since I did not re-edit the page, I had hoped you would appreciate its clear implication that I had come to appreciate your position. Instead you chose to re-iterate your position by displaying that you consider yourself an absolute authority on what qualifies for publication on wikipedia. Your response would have been better received in the spirit of collaboration had you simply responded (if you had to respond at all) to why you chose not to improve the article through augmentation (instead of mere extirpation). I would expect that we're all just trying to collaborate and help each other because we deem it socially responsible - the tone of your posts does not seem to support this motive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisalvali (talk • contribs) 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Variadic templates → Variadic template – Reason: Singular noun in title. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SINGULAR. Jenks24 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very surprising to illustrate a new feature of C++ with an old C function like printf. An example more in line with C++ practise should have been used, in my opinion. Ptyxs (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed GCC PR

That GCC PR is fixed now although only in trunk, not in any released GCC. Jankratochvil (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

C++ tuple example unnecessarily verbose

Is there any reason the tuple example uses such verbose types? I stared at the expression for 5 minutes wondering why the article says it is "initialized with 3 types" when clearly there were 4 [sic]. Does the 'std::map<std::string, std::vector<int>>' really add any info to the example? If so what? If not, I suggest replacing it with e.g. 'float' just for readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.11.209.142 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What about Java?

This wikipedia page says that C++ and D implement variadic templates. What about the Java programming language? In Java they are called "generics" instead of "templates", but It is the same idea. 2600:100E:B0CE:F262:FCA6:F77E:6A0F:C283 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feature test macro

@Birthay boy, why are you continuing to re-add the feature test macro? I have already mentioned in the edit summary that including feature check macros does not add any useful information to the article other than implementation details, is not directly relevant to the article, and furthermore there are no other C++-related topics that include feature test macro information (not Concepts (C++), Modules (C++), Design by contract, Coroutine, or any other feature test macro covered topic). At best something like that is constrained to a page like C++ Standard Library, which would be a relevant location to discuss the <version> header and its semantics, but otherwise this is a hardly relevant implementation detail whose mention can only be used to serve as supplementing a tutorial. ~2026-20891-37 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, i didn't saw your edit actually, my initial thought was that i mismembered & didn't add the feature test macro thing in the first and i didn't even saw you edited this article. This thing would make sense though, adding the macro. Maybe you're right it may be more suitable to the C++ Standard Library article but i don't know. Birthay boy (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Why would it make sense to include? It's relevant to only one header of the C++ standard library and is specifically only relevant to checking whether an implementation has support for the feature, or not, which has nothing to do with the feature itself. It's quite literally an implementation detail that is only as relevant insofar as checking for the ability exists on a given distribution or not. Furthermore, no other page with a topic relevant to C++ mentions feature check macros and so there is no precedence for even showing this in a page. Again, if there must be coverage on feature test macros at all in C++, it should either be on the C++ standard library page or have a page entirely dedicated to feature test macros in C++ and the <version> header, but including it here is pointless detail that goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~2026-21113-05 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, -though quite irrelevant- i noticed that this page is too poorly written; it needs a good rewrite, to say. Birthay boy (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)