Subject: Re: [boost] ATTENTION: Library requirements..
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-07 09:23:59
On January 7, 2016 7:40:44 AM EST, "AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ©" <kaballo86_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 1/7/2016 7:53 AM, Louis Dionne wrote:
> > Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:
> >> f) javescript.
> >> I thing the admonitions agains java script should be softened.
> Most of
> >> the concerns existent when the document was originally written
> >> apply to day. I would like to see our html documentation support
> >> like syntax coloring, running example code online, and the like.
> > +1
> makes the
> > performance benchmarks to the documentation in a nice way.
> I wouldn't
> mind its use when it results in a superior documentation, as long as
> it's optional and I can still get at least a mediocre documentation
> the basic information, and possibly some hint that I need to enable
> What's your take on the remaining ones?
> - Makes printing docs pages difficult.
That's probably not common, but the same is probably true for generating PDF docs, too.
> - Often results in really bad user interface design.
That's like saying C++ often results in bad code. All tools, including HTML and CSS, can produce bad results.
> - "It's just annoying in general."
I suppose that's necessary to ensure we don't release problematic docs.
> - Makes docs maintenance by other than the original developer more
I'm not sure that has much merit.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk