Re: The standard library is better documented

From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-12-02 19:12:17

On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 at 16:58, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 2:08 AM Niilo Huovila via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > By better I mean cppreference.com. There's a page for pretty much
> > everything in the standard library. Related pages are linked. The
> > preconditions and behavior of functions are specified. Consequentially I
> > come to Boost only when the standard library doesn't do enough. If you
> > are going to compete with the standard library instead of just
> > supplementing it, you need outstanding documentation.
>
> It would be useful if you could point to instances of Boost libraries
> that could use better documentation.

I can point to such instances: all Boost libraries.

I do realise I may sound cynical, but as a user I've been tolerant
to the Boost authors' freedom of choice for very long time,
enough to make me feel entitled to express it that way.

Of course, this applies to myself, who's old school punk nature once
raised again with "Hmm, what is the documentation tool that
Boost has *not* seen yet?" which turned into forcing GIL to Sphinx.

My autistic mind literally suffers from all of the freedoms allowed in
Boost leading to inconsistent mess of tools, source formatting,
markup formats and rendering results.

Lately, I've had to be Go'ing a lot and it's been like a cucumber
compress to vigilant eyes of the "death march" coder.

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