Re: The standard library is better documented

From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-12-04 20:36:27

On Dec 4, 2023, at 12:21 PM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 21:05, Niilo Huovila via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>> On 12/4/23 4:36 PM, Hans Dembinski wrote:
>>>> On 2. Dec 2023, at 16:57, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It would be useful if you could point to instances of Boost libraries
>>>> that could use better documentation.
>>> 
>>> Can we organise a user poll that ranks all Boost libraries on how well documented they are?
>>> 
>>> Might be a fun way to approach this and it provides an opportunity to create some publicity for Boost when we advertise this. I can see the news headline: "Boost devs finally respond to user cries for better docs"
>> 
>> The secret of cppreference seems to be that it is a wiki. How about
>> that? Users could put their energy to improving the docs instead of
>> complaining. :)
> 
> Users can already do that by submitting pull requests on GitHub.

Or, if they don’t grok Quickbook, they can open a GitHub issue and suggest better wording.

— Marshall