Re: [boost] Help request, boost docs

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-20 18:12:11

Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:38 -0700, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> I  really like the expand/contract feature that the javascriptcontrol
>> provides- though if I had to I
>> could probably live without it.  I would think that it would be an
>> optional "add-on" that not everyone else has to use.
>
> One of the great things about what Matias et al are doing is that it
> will give all of Boost's library documentation a consistent look and
> feel.

>That's really important for making Boost feel like a coherent
> collection of libraries and helping users navigate the documentation
> of  new libraries.

> I'm not for or against the navigation control, but I would be very
> much against having it available in some libraries but not others.
> The whole  point of BoostBook was to do what they're doing now... get all 
> Boost
> docs into one format with a nice, consistent L&F, then add searching,
> indexing, etc. to make it more coherent.

A... so either something like BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT should have
its own navigator even though its one page or Boost Serialization shouldn't
have one even though its maybe 100 pages long?  How can that make
any sense?

I think the idea that boost can so consistent/coherent/uniform (or whatever
term one wants to use) accross all its libraries (spanning 8 years so far)
is unrealistic, and in general not a good idea.  Variation in depth, scope,
size, application area, etc is just too broad to think this is really
doable, and attempts to make them look more alike than they are
involve a lot of effort which could be better spent elsewhere.  That
making things more consistent can be a good idea - but its not
an end in itself and can be taken too far.

Robert Ramey