Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-16 03:29:19

Robert Ramey wrote:

> >I think it's probably better to somehow make all new libraries use
> >Boost.Book.
> >If that's done, any presentation issues can be solved in one place. For
> >example, I think there were already discussion about expandable TOC on the
> >boost-doc failings list.
> I would like to see one package done in boost book before we impose such a
> requirement. When I go to the NightlyCVS link in the main boost page it
> shows what looks like boost book generated main page (whose aesthetics I'm
> not crazy about).

Aesthetics does not matter, really. It was much worse before but when I've
made some noise about that on boost-doc mailing list, the look was improved
so I consider it reasonable now. You surely will be able to post your
complaints too.

> When I click on one of the items it's a dead link. This
> gives me the impression that is still in development
shows as much as 11 libraries with real content, see for example:


> and that
> there are still too many pending issues to impose such a requirement.

I'm sorry, but this sounds kinda like FUD. What specific issues you have in
mind? There are some thing I'd personally like to have improved, but
Boost.Book is definitely pretty usable now.

- Volodya

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