Re: [boost] From an user to developers

Subject: Re: [boost] From an user to developers
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-08 12:57:05

On 8 June 2012 17:01, Oodini <svdbg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am an user, and I am currently reviewing all the Boost libraries.
>
> But for a common user, some needs are not satisfied in the libraries descriptions.
>
> The Boost organization should compel the libraries authors to put in their documentation :
>
> 1. the history of all releases, with notes for each release

You mean a changelog per library?

> 2. the motivation of their library

Do you have any examples handy?

> 3. when they offer services similar to the ones provided by the STL, why did they feel the need to complete it, and what are the differences

Same, examples?

> 3. for the relevant libraries, their status regarding the new features of C++11
> (are they obsolete ? do they remain some differences ? ex : Array, Chrono, DateTime), especially the ones related to TR1

AFAIK, there is no such concept as obsolete Boost library if
confronted with C++ standard libraries.
The fact that C++ std has got  std::shared_ptr does not make
boost::shared_ptr deprecated.
boost::shared_ptr stays here and will be offered as an alternative
implementation,
same boost::array and similar.

> An homogeneous structure for the documentation would be welcome.

I second that, it is even annoying to have multiple formats and documenting
technologies involved, but I have lost hope on that front.
There has been severe amount of discussion on boost-docs
(e.g. see the thread about Sphinx integration
http://lists.boost.org/boost-docs/2011/09/index.php)

Boost is huge and it is impractical to ask developers to follow single
convention of formats and tools, fight against personal preferences of
developers, etc. So, I have taken that point.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net