I'm making introductory level samples for C++11 features. Feedback please.

I plan to cover all additions that C++11 brings to C++ and am writing samples aimed at beginner, beginner-intermediate level programmers.

I am doing this to help myself learn and to have a single repository where there is sample code for every single C++11 feature.

The articles are going to be alternating between core language and library features.

Please send your criticism, corrections and hopefully some praise my way.

EDIT 0: minor typo fix

EDIT 1: I announce the articles on twitter with the username CacheLatency

Very impressive!

Some feedback:

Your cut points between summaries and full articles often fall at awkward points. Most notably, don't put them right after a sentence that ends in a ':'; instead, write the summary to stand alone. For instance, your declspec summary ought to end with something like "Read on for examples of when you might want to use declspec instead of auto.", and your summary of the new random bits should end with something like "C++11 adds a new object-oriented random number generator with many enhancements over the C library version."

Your article tags seem rather redundant to be as prominent as they are; every article has the "C++", "C++11", and "Programming" tags.

In your shared_ptr example, you should talk about when you might need to actually take away the reference from the shared_ptr, so that it outlives the shared_ptr.

Nice articles, some points:

The shared_ptr article should at least mention std::make_shared and why it might be a good idea to use it.

The decltype article could mention std::declval.

The auto article could mention that auto can be combined with 'const' and '&' since auto on its own won't create a reference type. It could also be noted that auto is useful when you're writing generic code and might not know the types you're dealing with.

I like it so far.

Is there any sense of ordering, or is each article self-contained? I wouldn't encourage shared_ptr as the smart pointer of first resort, unique_ptr is preferable where it's suitable.

I would also suggest going ahead and giving more guidance on when and when not to use various features, C++11 has a lot of redundant features. This is gonna start shading into matters of opinion, but somebody's got to do it, and for a novice any sane advice is better than nothing.

I like this a lot! Very nicely arranged, but the tags seem a bit repetitive (I.E. C++, C++11, Programming). Unless you're planning to add other languages and categories other than just programming (E.G. "Administration"?) I'd just skip those. The only other thing I'd add to this is a means to search for articles.

Nice work overall. :)

Very impressive! At first glance I thought you made a typo under <random>.

    for (auto int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {

After a Google search, I read that there's apparently no difference between 'auto int' and just 'int'. I've never seen this before. Why write both?

shared_ptr: 1) It might be helpful to show an example with a bare pointer and then show the improved version with shared_ptr. 2) One good way to illustrate object lifetimes in RAII demos is to create a class that prints a message in the destructor. 3) In practice most people use a typedef for shared_ptr types. Instead of writing "shared_ptr<Class>" everywhere you would "typedef shared_ptr<class> ClassP" and then just use ClassP to declare shared_ptr variables.

auto: I think you can expand a bit on how auto interacts with reference and const qualifiers.

I think you should keep going, I would love basic snippets kind of like http://cocoadevcentral.com for C++.

two spellos: psuedorandom, conveniet