Talk:C dynamic memory allocation/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:23, 22 October 2014

Revision as of 01:30, 29 May 2015

Line 41:

::: [[C dynamic memory allocation]] is also a subcategory of [[C memory management]]. These files are the outlines of how the dynamic memory allocation is achieved in C. [[alloc.h]] is a header file. Header files must have different page because they do not give the concept but the information about the functions and how they work.[[alloc.h]] is not telling "what is memory management in C?" but it tells how the memory is managed by using functions in it. So I do think, header files should not be merged.[[User:AshishDandekar7|AshishDandekar7]] ([[User talk:AshishDandekar7|talk]]) 06:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: No, [[WP:NOTMANUAL]] explicitly forbids information about how to use functions, a.k.a. manual. Also, we agreed that we don't want such pages in [[Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL|this]] discussion. Having said that, the content won't disappear anywhere, since we will import it to Wikibooks before merging. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 11:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

== No consensus for the rename ==

There was no consensus to rename this page. None at all. 1exec1 argued endlessly that that's what he wanted to do, but got no clear support from anyone else and a clear objection from me. You can't come in with a proposal for a move and then ignore the fact that no one agrees with you. This should be undone. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:Could you point me out how "''I think moving the article to [[Dynamic memory management in C]] <...>is a good first step''" ([[User:strcat]]) and "''maybe Dynamic memory management in C is a compromise; I can’t think of much better''" ([[User:Vadmium]]) does not constitute support? By the way, the general consensus '''against''' articles for each function in the C standard library was clearly established [[Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL|here]] [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::Those are editors willing to discuss the idea and consider alternatives. Even to the extent they may have been okay with a different title, both of them were thinking of a different title than what you picked. That is not consensus. You did not get consensus. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::: You seem to misunderstand how [[WP:CONSENSUS]] process works. There was a strong consensus '''against''' leaving this page at ''malloc''. Having the support for a change, I moved the page to a title, similar to the suggested ones. Now I am further looking for refinements. This is how the consensus works, see [[WP:CONSENSUS]], specifically "''the absence of a prior discussion does not prove that the change is not supported by consensus''", in this case, absence of prior discussion about the exact title does not prove that I did not have consensus.[[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: There's no reason to make this personal. I think I understand consensus just fine. You didn't get one. But let's let others weigh in. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

: I don't think there was a consensus to move the article to this particular title (which sounds rather awful to me), but there does seem to be support to move it to ''some'' title that indicates this articles has a broader than just the <code>malloc</code> function. I would have to agree with the latter. It's would seem quite to write an ''encyclopedic'' article on just the <code>malloc</code> function, you would quickly start discussing at least <code>free</code> and <code>realloc</code> and related functions, such as <code>alloca</code>. Instead of arguing if there was a consensus or not, it might be more constructive to open a [[WP:RM]] on this page. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 13:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Is there really a need to open [[WP:RM]]? We wouldn't move the page back to ''malloc'' in any case, because of lack of support for that. As for moving to a similar page, I agree that the current title is somewhat ugly, but I've yet to see a proposal for a better title. By the way, the correct title probably would be ''C memory management functions'', because that's what the C standard uses (section 7.20.3). [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 23:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)