Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 20:12:54

At 04:16 PM 10/29/2002, William E. Kempf wrote:

>Douglas Gregor said:
>> On Tuesday 29 October 2002 10:43 am, Peter Simons wrote:
>>> Douglas Gregor writes:
>>> Also, DocBook is extensible; if you find that tags are missing, just
>>> define them. Or report them to the guys at 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 to understand what we need
>> Boost documentation, so we're probably (mostly) on our own if we want
>> to extend DocBook for Boost.
>Except our needs coincide with the needs of the C++ standards committee
>and most C++ developers, so I wouldn't be too surprised if they weren't
>interested in some collaboration if it's actually needed. Of course, I'm
>just guessing ;).

Some of the LWG members just had a related conversation with Matt Austern.
He is the Project Editor (ISO-speak for person in charge) for the Library
TR. Since as of Friday there are now accepted proposals, he needs to make a
decision about what tool to use for the TR's documentation base.

The three he mentioned that he is considering are:

   * DocBook
   * Latex
   * Troff (to take advantage of all the troff macros used to produce
            the standard itself.)

I've already let him know that this discussion is happening. It would be a
great time saver IMO if both the Library TR and Boost were using the same


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at