Subject: Re: [boost] ATTENTION: Library requirements..
From: Sam Kellett (samkellett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-08 04:40:16
On 8 January 2016 at 09:32, Rainer Deyke <rainerd_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 07.01.2016 18:11, Robert Ramey wrote:
> > b) syntax coloring for code examples
> static, so they can and should be statically colored. This means that
that's massively open to human error and adds a substantial workload on the
dev which could be better spent (re)writing the actual documentation
content to a better level.
all 4 of those look suitable on first glance.
if boost were to pick one and provide a syntax file for doc writers to use
they would provide a unified code example look across the entire library
for no extra work from each maintainer. seems like a win to me?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk