The tag has become ambiguous and a source of confusion. There is (not used), , , , soonish there will be and and then there is (synonym for ) and (which should be a synonym for ). C++11 is so much different from C++03 that most answers for one tend to be wrong or not very useful for the other.

One way to deal with this is to make a union of all other C++ tags which should be reflected in the description and when searching for C++ questions. Additionally C++ should not be a valid tag for new questions.

Another way would be to treat the different versions of C++ as different languages and remove altogether.

There may be similar issues with other languages such as Java 5/6/7/8 and C 89,98,11.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this will make it harder for c++ experts to follow all c++ questions. \$\endgroup\$
    – skiwi
    Nov 16 '14 at 16:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ @skiwi Unless you make following c++ equivalent to following c++98 c++03 c++11 and c++14. \$\endgroup\$
    – nwp
    Nov 16 '14 at 16:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ actually SE allows to favorite wildcard-tags, which is awesome... Anyways, we had that discussion about java already. IIRC the final resolution was "no multiple java tags, but for languages where there's no backwards compatibility guaranteed keep a 'root tag' and the specific version tags" \$\endgroup\$
    – Vogel612
    Nov 16 '14 at 16:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ We could do what we did with Java, and have the C++ standard tags a synonym of c++. Otherwise, knowing which standard tag to use for sure could be more confusing. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal Mod
    Nov 16 '14 at 18:06
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Once again we need tag hierarhies, and once again it is in order to solve the problem of programming languages versionning. \$\endgroup\$
    – Morwenn
    Nov 17 '14 at 10:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .