From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-04 12:45:48
On Monday 04 November 2002 11:29 am, William E. Kempf wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not extending DocBook at all. DocBook's support for
> > documenting code is very Java/C-centric, and not nearly rich enough to
> > deal with templates, specialization, or metafunctions. We could extend
> > it, of course, but it would be a massive effort to introduce changes of
> > this magnitude into DocBook... I'm not sure we're up to that.
> No, but letting the DocBook folks know about this effort would be a good
> idea. They could take where we left off and incorporate a solution into
> DocBook, which would be a good thing for everyone.
Let's wait until we have something a little more substantial to show.
> Also, I've not had a chance to dig deeply yet, but I hope you're using
> DocBook tag names when they do exist. Even if we don't have any hopes for
> this ever becomming part of the official DocBook, it would help the
> learning curve for anyone who knows DocBook.
Good point. At the moment, the tag names are different, but the structure is
very similar. When I get a chance, I'll change the current syntax to (try to)
make it a pure superset of the DocBook syntax.
> I agree totally, and the use of tools like reST is what could make writing
> documentation simple! But we need to figure out how to get all of this
> stuff to work together the way we want with little effort on the
> developers... and then document the heck out of how to use the various
> tools together.
I'm hoping that the Jam folks can help us out once we've gotten a bit further
along. It would be really nifty if we could have Jam support for formatting
the documentation. Wouldn't it be great to type "bjam pdf-doc" and get a PDF
of all of Boost's documentation?
P.S. I've now converted most of the Boost.Function documentation to DocBook w/
the C++ XML included. The chunked HTML output is here:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk