Sebastian Menge wrote: > C, C++, C# Categories and titles > How should we deal with that?
I don't understand the desire to specifically subcategorise everything. Why not just have one category named C? Later, when there is a demonstrable need to have subcategories of Category:C, we could worry about which tips should only be in Category:C, and which only in Category:C++, and which both, etc. I just browsed a few tips in the C category - they all seemed applicable for C++. I haven't checked, but common sense tells me that there would be few C++ tips that don't apply to C, even if the tip involves some language feature that C is missing. C# is a bit different, but the only two C# tips are in fact generic tips that happen to refer to C#. What if I really want to see a tip on refactoring my ancient C program, but I miss the tip because I don't search the C# category? Likewise, what's with TeX and LaTeX? It seems overly-pedantic hair splitting to claim that a particular tip concerns LaTeX but not TeX. I recommend having *only* a C category, with suitable text explaining that it covers C++ and C# and BCPL and similar languages. Likewise, only have a TeX category which covers LaTeX and any other variations. Change this only when there is a need (or when someone proposes a potential need - I just can't imagine Vim tips on C++ that I would hate to see if I were a C-only programmer). By having C and C++ as separate categories, you force a programmer to search BOTH categories. BTW I see that Category:TeX is broken in that it doesn't have a parent (and it should use CatInfo). I suppose that if HTML is under LanguageSpecific, then TeX should be as well? John _______________________________________________ Vim-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/vim-l
