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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk