C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG20] Question on intent of topics

From: Balog Pal <pasa_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 10:34:09 +0200
On 5/31/2020 4:50 AM, Robert Douglas via SG20 wrote:
> It's not clear to me, in writing these topic: what level of expertise
> should we expect of an instructor?
> * Is it ok to expect they will do additional research? Or do we need
> to teach everything on the topic
> within the topic?
> * Is it desirable, acceptable, unacceptable, or prohibited to refer to
> language features by their standard-names, such as grammar terms?
> Should we substitute with community names when available? Should we
> seek to invent new names? For example, I am working on the topic for
> requires-expressions, which appeals to terms like
> 'simple-requirements', 'type-requirements', etc. While I agree I
> wouldnt expect an instructor to necessarily know these terms when they
> begin creating their material, is it ok to expect they will do the
> research to learn them?
> * Should we be providing examples: always, when useful, when
> necessary, or never?

Wow, these are extremely good questions.

And possibly the ideal is to have multiple set of modules (over time) to
support teachers with different knowledge and experience level with
C++. Two categories that immediately jump into my mind: teachers in
formal schools and team leaders in active projects.

For the second question I think we *can not* expect our audience to have
read the standard document and know the real "standard terms" for most
of them. And the exceptions to that would certainly know the "community

I would use cppreference.com as a middle ground, use the terms that has
in index, with links /references.

Received on 2020-05-31 03:37:29