Subject: Re: [boost] [doxygen] CSS/Temple files for Doxygen
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-10 06:18:03
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Artyom
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 8:50 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [doxygen] CSS/Temple files for Doxygen
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]>
> To be honest...
> I prefer to use ONE too for projects I work on.
> With Doxygen I can generate both great tutorials and reference (in-source-code) documentation,
> integrate them and what is most important to use ONE - SAME syntax.
> The only project using quickbook today is Boost. And it can't be really used outside the scope of
> I don't develop for Boost only but rather have several different FOSS projects that use Doxygen
> of them use Boost.Build.
> So instead of learning one more tool, create an entire toolchain of Doxyen/Quickbook/DocBook/HTML
> prefer to use one tool that can be easily integrated with CMake and easy to install.
> To be honest. I find Doxygen a very good tool for documenting software and I don't understand why
> hadn't adopted one... But this is other story.
> Finally I don't want to move to other tool especially when Boost does not enforce me. I'll keep
> as-is and maybe tweak CSS a little
OK, I can see I'm not going to persuade you :-)
But your Doxygen docs looks nice and are up to Boost standards.
(Have you thought of adding custom Doxygen html header/footers to make it look Boostier?)
> BTW Doxygen knows to produce PDFs as well.
"PDF can be generated from the LaTeX output"
Have you done this for your docs? Boost PDF versions are popular.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk