From: James Curran/MVP (jamescurran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-15 09:51:37
These are generated from XML, correct? If so, could you include a link
to the source XML?
Also, on the HTML, all the graphic seem to point to broken links.
-- Truth, James Curran www.NovelTheory.com (Personal) www.NJTheater.com (Professional) www.aurora-inc.com (Day job) "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:200211150156.38481.gregod_at_cs.rpi.edu... > Hello all, > I've improved the DocBook-based reference documentation a bit more. Changes > & new features: > - Ability to use the Docbookesque <classname>foo</classname> to create a > link to the class named "foo" (as defined in a reference section) within > text, function signatures, etc. > - Better support for syntax highlighting > - Better support for man pages > > The current HTMLized version of the Boost.Function docs (incomplete, but > getting closer...) is here: > http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~gregod/Boost/function-html/ > > The man pages (very much improved!) are available here: > http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~gregod/Boost/function-man/ > > Is this the way we want to go with documentation? Should we explore other > options (e.g., LaTeX) further, or is there any other part of the system we > need to see working before we can choose? We need a better documentation > solution for Boost, but if developers think we are going the wrong way and > won't use it (and don't speak up), then the situation is dire indeed. > > Doug > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost >
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk