From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 15:31:03
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 10:43 am, Peter Simons wrote:
> Douglas Gregor writes:
> > With DocBook alone we can't express our reference documentation by
> > the C++ code structure and end up with a useful document.
> DocBook provides tags to express classes, interfaces, member
> functions ... Pretty much anything, actually. Here's an example from
> my RFC822 parser documentation:
In your opinion, do you think it's enough to handle what we need in Boost? My
FUD-ridden opinion is that the tag set for expressing classes, member
functions, etc. is too Java-centric to be applicable to generic C++ code.
> I had much fun learning this kind of stuff, until I finally realized
> that this is a waste of time and just placed my class declarations
> into <literallayout> or <programlisting> tags. :-)
That's precisely what we _don't_ want to do, because it tosses inter-library
consistency right out the window :)
> Also, DocBook is extensible; if you find that tags are missing, just
> define them. Or report them to the guys at docbook.org: They are very
> cooperative and certainly value input from their users. This would
> also be beneficial to many more people than just "Boosters'.
I wouldn't expect the guys at docbook.org to understand what we need for Boost
documentation, so we're probably (mostly) on our own if we want to extend
DocBook for Boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk