Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-31 04:58:39
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Louis Dionne
> Sent: 30 July 2014 21:20
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] [Boost.Hana] Formal review request
> Paul A. Bristow <pbristow <at> hetp.u-net.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > For me, the killer argument for using Quickbook is the ability to use
> > *code snippets*.
> > These ensure that the bits of code you show have actually been through
> > the
> > (current) compiler.
> That's what I currently do with Doxygen; all the snippets in the reference are
> from the example/ subdirectory of the project, and all those files are
> ran just like the other unit tests. It's really great.
Excellent! (Are they *live* links, updating the docs when you modify the
How about an alphabetic index of functions, names, words, concepts, ideas ...?
We are used to using the index in books, but they are less common in e-docs.
Despite hyperlinks, navigation and search are still troublesome.
I find the index really useful when dealing with the monster Boost.Math docs -
and I wrote some of it!
> > PS For me, the library name is a big turn off - it doesn't say what
> > the library does.
> Heterogeneous combiNAtors
I see. But I still don't like it (nor do I like Fusion or Proto but that's
Internal function names are much more important.
As Eric wisely remarks, "Names are Hard. ", but "Names are Important!"
Saying *why* is going to be vital?
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk