Subject: [boost] Proposed documentation convention for pre-accepted libs
From: Marsh Ray (marsh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-02 12:39:46
On 05/02/2011 10:33 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> On 5/1/2011 4:08 PM, Francisco José Tapia wrote:
>> or if you want a quick look , you can see in my web page<
> Please adjust your docs to make it *very* clear this is not an official,
> or accepted, Boost C++ Library.
I suggest that Boost adopt a convention for the documentation of
libraries that are in the formally proposed or trial balloon state.
It seems like a good idea to have an alternate set of identifiers,
perhaps an alternate BoostBook stylesheet, macros, etc. that library
authors can use when developing libraries that they think they might
want to submit. A set of guidelines that would make it easy for an
author to put together everything for a well-integrated submission
without it looking like he's representing his library as an official
Then it can be just a few search-and-replace operations away from
official once the library is accepted.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk