Talk:Cross-cutting concern

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

The proper spelling of this term has no hyphen. I am removing it and moving the page.

Oppose. The hyphenless form is only "proper" on this side of the pond. The Oxford English Dictionary has only "cross-cutting", not "crosscutting". According to my copy of "British English A to Zed", while it is common in the US (and based on your user page, perhaps also Canada) to drop the hyphen from compound words, the British tend to keep them (I ran into the same issue with blowfly/blow-fly/blow fly). Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) supports the hyphenated form--try googling "cross-cutting concern" vs "crosscutting concern". Niteowlneils 00:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so common names isn't as conclusive as I thot. Googling "cross-cutting concerns" vs "crosscutting concerns" tips the other way (tho' not nearly as lopsided). Since that's a wash, I still believe there's no compelling reason to move it from one 'correct' spelling to another. Niteowlneils 00:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think you're right about usage. The "correct" term according to the AOSD.net website is crosscutting (full disclosure---I created the wiki on that site, but other people added the terms). However, it does seem that the world at large is still mixed in this case. Andrew Eisenberg 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Literature list too long?

Whoah? Who just chopped off all the paper references? While I agree that the list is long, it isn't justified to simply delete all of them but the 'A's.

I suggest one of two things:

Create a new page for all the literature and keep it all there
Select 3 'seminal' papers and move all the rest down to the bottom

--Andrew Eisenberg 23:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

I proposed a merge from Cross Cutting to here. This article is named more in-line with what aspect-oriented programming defines and is a bit better formatted. I'm not really sure how much content is there that can be fixed up, but I proposed the merge anyway. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up stripping the merge tags off. I tried to do the merge myself and found out there really was no content to merge, it was all duplicated except for the example which wasn't necessary and unsourced. I ended up just redirecting Cross Cutting here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]