Re: [boost] Improving Boost Docs

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving Boost Docs
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-15 00:16:48

On 8/14/2017 5:28 PM, Soul Studios via Boost wrote:
>> The main objection to the quickbook - boostbook - doxygen way of 
>> generating documentation, as I understand it, is that it is very hard 
>> to generate a different look-and-feel to the documentation from the 
>> standard one created by the stylesheets. OTOH others think having the 
>> same look-and-feel of all Boost docs is an advantage. So I do not 
>> think there is any way around this basic disagreement.
> 
> My main objection was that it's overly complicated and unnecessary.

Why do you find it overly complicated ?

> It's an absolutely ridiculous toolchain, that one shouldn't have to 
> learn merely in order to write Docs.

The only thing you have to learn is Quickbook and doxygen. I see nothing 
"ridiculous" in that. You can ignore boostbook/docbook completely.

> If there had been an insistence on a particular look-and-feel with a 
> supplied .css, I would've been fine with that. Instead I gave up.

No one forces you to use Quickbook or doxygen. But your emotional 
response to both is very surprising.