Re: Tool maintenance

From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-05-26 19:08:57

On Wed, 26 May 2021 at 20:58, Stefan Seefeld via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2021-05-26 12:46 p.m., Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
> > Too bad, as the bug will not be fixed. Am I really the only person
> > using the quickbook/boostbook/doxygen toolchains to document a library
> > with doxygen documentation for entities in a nested namespace ? It
> > seems so. I guess I will have to except the fact that the nested
> > namespace entities will never be documented in the doxygen-generated
> > reference for a library.
>
> That's one of the main reason why I have always argued against in-house
> tools. Alternatives (such as sphinx

Sphinx is a very good alternative to our in-house indeed
Here is a good intro to the Sphinx stack:
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/clear-functional-c-documentation-with-sphinx-breathe-doxygen-cmake/

> or mcdocs)

I've looked into mkdocs, and I use it at work,
but for a library documentation tool, it's too basic, IMO.

Alternative, which I'm yet to try myself,
is the AsciiDoc+AsciiDoctor + https://asciidoxy.org
BTW, AsciiDoc is getting momentum in Boost too.

> may have their own bugs,
> but they do have the advantage of having a (much) bigger community, so a
> maintainer disappearing is much less likely to become an issue.oost

:heavy_check_mark:

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net