Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [doc] Liven up Boost Documentation with Java Script?
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-24 14:59:44

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 1:05:39 PM UTC-6, Robert Ramey wrote:
> On 2/24/16 10:16 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
> >> I'm very familiar wiht Paul Fultz TICK library documentation and found
> >> it to be unworthy of the underlying package. Most of the problem is
> the
> >> text, reference, lack of examples, weak tutorial etc. But the
> >> presentation as a web page is quite different that the boost libraries.
> >> It's jaring and not as effective. There is also - as far as know
> anyway
> >> to produce a PDF version of the documentation. This last is something
> >> the Boost Documentation system can do - albiet reserved for those who
> >> prefer to do their own dentistry.
> >>
> >
> > The Tick library is "unworthy" of a formal review currently, and the
> > documentation is lacking because I have been working on preparing the
> > Boost.Fit library for formal review(which starts next week).
> Fine, I like the TICK package and I think it will be much better if more
> time can be invested in the documentation.

Yes, of course, but I only have so much time right now. I do plan to invest
more time after the review of Boost.Fit, but it doesn't have to be a one-man
show. If you would like to contribute examples or tutorials, like what you
have in boost library incubator(or it could be original content), I would be
more than happy to integrate them into the documentation.

> > You can see the
> > documentation for Boost.Fit here:
> >
> >
> >
> > It is much more complete with the boost look and feel, while being
> generated
> > using the same "underlying package" that both Boost.Tick and Boost.DI
> uses.
> >
> > Also a PDF can be generated using `mkdocs2pandoc` tool.
> >
> My point is that there are two ways to go:
> a) convince boost library developers to create a whole new markup for
> their documentation so they can test/use your proposed infrastructure to
> add commenting to their documentation.
> b) make a small optional add-on to boost book using xslt which would
> work with the markup they already have.
> Now step back and consider which of the two strategies is more likely to
> result in convincing boost library authors to experiment with including
> commenting with their documentation?

I am not proposing using some new markup nor I am not proposing that all
libraries jump ship to mkdocs either. There should be plenty of room for
documentation tools for boost libraries.

> Robert Ramey
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

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