Re: [boost] [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-29 13:48:47

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Louis Dionne wrote:
>
> That would mean a lot of workarounds. TBH, I think the "right" thing
> to do is to push the compiler folks to support C++14 (and without bugs, plz)
> as soon as possible. The reason I am so unwilling to do workarounds is that
> _the whole point_ of Hana is that it's cutting edge. Whenever you remove a
> C++14 feature, Hana goes back to the stone-age performance of Fusion/MPL
> and becomes much, much less usable. Why not use Fusion/MPL in that case?
>

I agree.

> Is it mandatory for a Boost library to have BoostBook documentation?
> I'd like to stay as mainstream as possible in the tools I use and reduce
> the number of steps in the build/documentation process for the sake of
> simplicity. Is there a gain in generating the documentation in BoostBook?

It is not mandatory as far as I know. [It was rightly mandatory for
Boost.Align because my documentation was essentially a single giant
index.html :-) ].

In my opinion your current documentation looks nicer, and more modern,
than most existing Boost library documentation]. The only case I can
see for BoostBook would be visual consistency with existing Boost
documentation.

Glen