From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-12 17:51:51
Perhaps someone might update and/or expand
to include a good example on how to do this.
Jeremy Graham Siek wrote:
> I'd just like to amplify what Dave is saying. It's our responsibility
> as the boost group to get the documentation right, especially
> concerning concepts, because others will emulate the
> documentation and coding styles that we use in boost libraries.
>> David Greene <greened_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> E. Is the documentation good enough for a boost library?
>>> This has been made very clear and Andy has graciously accepted
>>> the suggested documentation changes.
>> Andy has indeed graciously accepted criticism of the documentation,
>> for which I commend him.
>> What's missing for me is a clear intention to actively pursue better
>> docs himself, as opposed to being willing to accept specific edits
>> that other people happen to suggest. If we leave the quality of our
>> documentation (or code, for that matter) up to people who rewrite it
>> for us, we won't have much quality at all. IMO the library author
>> has to be willing to take responsibility for making the docs work;
>> any help from the outside is a bonus.
>> Learning to write good documentation isn't easy, and we need to work
>> hard at helping people to learn that skill. That said, it *has* to be
>> a "teach a man to fish" sort of thing, because at the end of the day,
>> there are just too many docs to be written.
>> Dave Abrahams
>> Boost Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk