jon.skeet (451) [Avatar] Offline
#1
This is a call for opinions. I'm currently looking at the appendixes, with the following thoughts: (this is slightly different from the table of contents on the MEAP site; things move quickly)

Appendix A: LINQ standard query operators. I think this provides value (having written it).

Appendix B: Highlights of .NET 2.0/3.0/3.5. Not sure on this - it would literally only be a few pages, and would they be useful?

Appendix C: C# LINQ compiler pattern: Ditched as it would be just a copy of what's in the language spec. I'll refer people to the spec instead.

Appendix D: Extra example LINQ queries with diagrams: I'll include them in the downloadable source code instead, including the diagrams. That way it's easier to play with them, but you still get the explanation. It doesn't take up valuable pages, either.

Appendix E: Online references: Will be a page on the book's web site instead. That way it can stay current.


So, does that sound reasonable, only having appendix A and possibly B? Is B worth having? When would you use it?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts and opinions,
Jon
mgravell (64) [Avatar] Offline
#2
Re: Appendixes: what would be useful?
Well if you are going to force me to anser (anther thread...)... in *general*, it is often quicker to google than dig out a detail from an appendix. However, I'd be tempted to say the LINQ info *would* be useful, as it allows you to introduce the wider range without disrupting the main book flow (where it might not fit so comfortably)

Marc
jon.skeet (451) [Avatar] Offline
#3
Re: Appendixes: what would be useful?
> Well if you are going to force me to anser (anther
> thread...)... in *general*, it is often quicker to
> google than dig out a detail from an appendix.
> However, I'd be tempted to say the LINQ info *would*
> be useful, as it allows you to introduce the wider
> range without disrupting the main book flow (where it
> might not fit so comfortably)

Yup, the LINQ stuff I'm pretty firm on keeping. I'm fairly firm on ditching C-E as well. It's B that I'm struggling with. Do you think I'll have readers who don't already have a reasonable idea of what's in 2.0/3.0/3.5? Would it be handy to have as a quick reference anyway?

Jon
mgravell (64) [Avatar] Offline
#4
Re: Appendixes: what would be useful?
>B
Maybe a summary table could be helpful without getting too overkill? What did you have in mind - a list of techs by name only (i.e. WCF, WPF etc for 3.0), or "topic, executive summary" pairs? or something else?
jon.skeet (451) [Avatar] Offline
#5
Re: Appendixes: what would be useful?
> >B
> Maybe a summary table could be helpful without
> getting too overkill? What did you have in mind - a
> list of techs by name only (i.e. WCF, WPF etc for
> 3.0), or "topic, executive summary" pairs? or
> something else?

It would probably be a page per version - a little bit more than just "techs by name" but not a lot. 2.0 would probably have a list of features (with no detail) for base class libraries, WinForms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET; 3.0 would have a short paragraph about each of WCF, WPF etc; 3.5 would probably be somewhere in between.

Jon
mgravell (64) [Avatar] Offline
#6
Re: Appendixes: what would be useful?
It is a tricky one; on one level it could be useful to draw it together in one place, as it (with the framework getting so big) it is easy to miss areas. Of course, some other MS jigsaw pieces don't even fit into this picture (WSE3, for instance).

But like yourself, I'm so on-the-fence here that I really don't want to lean too far in either direction; sometimes the right answer is to say "I don't know". Sorry.

Marc
jon.skeet (451) [Avatar] Offline
#7
Re: Appendixes: what would be useful?
That's absolutely fine - better to have an honest and considered "don't know" than either a "haven't thought about it" or "I'll express a definite view despite not minding much either way".

Jon