sob., 20 cze 2026 o 17:05 Arnaud Becheler <arnaud.becheler@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi Andrzej,
Thanks for clarifying. I just began integrating your feedback, a preview is available here: https://509.graph.prtest3.cppalliance.org/graph/index.html The video has been lengthened by 1/3 :)
Thank you! The video pace is definitely more friendly to people from my generation :) The introductory paragraph also makes a huge difference! Upon reading the intro one gets the impression that working with graphs and Boost.Graph is easy! This is a huge contribution to the library. Now, the Compiler Explorer link should be also updated to match the modified example. Regards, &rzej;
Best, Arno
On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 4:26 PM Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1@gmail.com> wrote:
wt., 16 cze 2026 o 14:02 Arnaud Becheler <arnaud.becheler@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Absolutely yes! Thank you so much for doing this! It is already way more user friendly and accessible.
Thank you Andrzej, you're welcome! This was a group effort, we can thank the Alliance for the support, Joaquin and Jeremy for their regular advice, contributors and workshop's attendees (Andrea Cassioli, Sylvain Ducomman and others) for useful feedback :)
Then let me extend my thanks to the entire team. You have made Boost a better place!
For instance, I do not see a Reference section
Oopsie I just understand now you mean a flat list of symbols ?
Yes, this.
Two things worth noting. The page itself is titled with the code spelling (`predecessor_recorder`), it's only the left-nav label that is prose ("Predecessor Recorder"). And the search bar is meant to cover exactly this case: typing `predecessor_recorder` takes you straight to the page, since the identifier is indexed from the heading and body.
On bringing back the old flat symbol table (table_of_contents.html): it was actually highly incomplete and it's mixing purposed (flat symbols refs + conceptual navigation), so I'd rather not reinstate it as-is, the search box is the better lookup-by-symbol path going forward. It is also much easier and robust to maintain (new contributors should not have to touch high-level pages to document algorithm-specific symbols). If you ever search a symbol and it doesn't surface, just ping me, that's a much more useful signal than the old list. Long-term I would love to have an automated extraction of such symbols (mrdocs to the rescue), that would solve your question and my worries. Again, feedback welcome.
I didn't mean my comment to sound like another request. I thought your request was to verify if nothing is missing relative to the old docs. And I was not able to do this in a short time. I am only grateful that you are doing this.
Oh, and the original authors from Indiana University need to be listed in the front matter.
Agreed, it's related to the Reference question I mentioned: original
authors, the "How to Cite" question, the BGL book etc. What would you personally want to see mentioned and where ?
I think the convention is to put the author names on the landing page. For instance, https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_91_0/doc/html/accumulators.html
Regards, &rzej;