Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-21 14:05:44

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> "Hendrik Schober" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> See here how you can tailor Boost.Build for your platform.
>> and
>> See here how to do this.
>> are ungrammatical.
> The first can be rewritten as, "You can <a href="...">tailor
> Boost.Build</a> for your platform," for example.

That would be good.

>> To prepare Unix tools such as GCC, the compiler and linker must be
> Rather than "Unix" consider "*nix" to be more inclusive. Those
> using a *nix OS will understand. Those not using one won't care.

I have no objection.
But I do want to know: what *nix OS is not a Unix OS?

>> <p> Note: the <b><code>#include</code> root</b> directory mentioned
> s/root/<i>root</i>

What is your rationale for suggesting that change?

The only possible reason I can imagine is that you're worried people
will think "root" is source code text. But there's already a good
hint: the change from code font. I'm pretty sure we don't want to get
into using bold-italic text without a very strong motivation.

>> The default build and install attempts to build all available
>> libraries and install to default locations the libraries and Boost
>> header files.
> Now you're sounding a bit like Yoda.

Yeah, I had a hard time with that one.

> How about this:
> The default build and install attempts to build all available
                                  ^--- "process"
> libraries and install the libraries and header files to
> default locations.

I don't like the replication of "default," but I'm not sure how to
improve it at this point.

>> Also, there's a preposition missing before "how." How about,
>> If you are using an IDE, there is usually a graphical tool for
>> specifying which directories will be searched for
>> <code>#include<...></code>ed files.
> "Graphical tool" suggests something other than a dialog or other
> on-screen GUI structure to me. It suggests, e.g., charting. I
> suggest this:
> If you are using an IDE, it probably provides a means for
> specifying which directories will be searched for....

Better. "A means to specify" would be more natural for me.

>> Footnotes:
>> [1] Depending on your installation, a Unix compiler such as GCC may
>> have additional requirements. Check with your system administrator
>> if you're unsure about your installation.
> While correct, "you're unsure" is a bit awkward. I suggest
> expanding the contraction or replacing "unsure" with "not sure."

Doesn't seem awkward to me. When do you feel "unsure" is unawkward?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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