From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-04-23 09:53:58
>> maintainers to agree in a single tech to document anything.
> Definitely. No chance.
> Almost every library has 'done their own thing' in various way, either by using
> a different tool, or by using an existing tool differently.
FWIW: I'd welcome something more standard. Like:
You want Doxygen: Use this setup (Jamfile/CMakeLists)
You want Asciidoc: Use that
BoostBook?: Here you go
I know there is no "one size fits all", but maybe a "use this for
code-heavy and that for template heavy libraries."
Or just any guideline. I was a bit lost when I added the documentation
for Nowide. I didn't want to install 3 or 4 different tools and go
through 3 conversions just to get some docu done. Especially not if B2
magic is involved which can't be easily replicated in (e.g.) CMake
Just my experience with current documentation workflow. If I got
anything wrong: See it as exemplary how confusing it is ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk