Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-28 14:16:16

on Wed Sep 28 2011, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote:

> On 28/09/11 13:24, Daniel James wrote:
>> On 28 September 2011 13:04, Mateusz Loskot<mateusz_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>
>>> On 27/09/11 00:46, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would it be valid to discuss Sphinx for Boost?
>>>
>>> Reconsidering my thoughts on that and I've come to conclusion
>>> that a strict unification of writing documentation across all the
>>> libraries in the Boost collection would be impossible and probably
>>> impractical. It's more a wishful thinking of mine.
>>> I'm also lacking of better idea(s) myself.
>>>
>>> I have to fight the complexity of documentation workflow
>>> where I suffer of it myself, it is in Boost.Geometry.
>>
>> Well, if you can demonstrate how well a solution works, it could see
>> more uptake.
>
> Good point.
>
>> For sphinx, a good start might be to convert the existing
>> docutils based documentation to sphinx, if possible.
>
> What you mean as docutils?

Docutils == ReStructuredText, for all intents and purposes.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com