Boost logo

Boost :

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
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

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,

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at