From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-22 09:18:54
On Monday 22 September 2003 10:02 am, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
> > there is a project to normalize the look-n-feel of Boost
> > documentation via the "BoostBook" documentation format.
> Looking at the BoostBook Wiki, it states that the goals for the BoostBook
> format include
> - should be possible to express mathematical formulas
> How well does BoostBook meet these goals? It seems to be based on DocBook,
> and my experience with DocBook has been that using it is quite painful if
> you have any significant amount of mathematics in your document.
It's failing this goal quite fantastically, for the reason you give. DocBook
had a whole heck of a lot of advantages that LaTeX did not, but LaTeX had the
solid math support.
> - source format should be easy to write and read.
This is mostly a matter of taste :) XML can be tedious to write (although the
editor support is very good), but it's not hard. One can write a simple
BoostBook document using the "HTML conversion guide" that's part of the
BoostBook documentation. The C++ part of BoostBook is big (lots of elements),
but similar enough to C++ in terminology and structure that it isn't hard to
write; besides, one doesn't need to write this part any more because the
Doxygen bridge is getting much, much better now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk