Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-12 14:57:40

[2002-11-12] David Abrahams wrote:

>Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> On this I disagree... I think documentation output, to console,
>> should be re-wrapped, just as it would be if it was HTML instead. I
>> know people generally write sensible-looking comments, but that is
>> subjective. They write sensible comments on their editor, which
>> invariably is always set to different proportions to everyone
>> else. So people who use variable width fonts will write longer lines
>> than fixed width editing people causing strange and inconsistent
>> output to whoever reads the documentation. And documentation should
>> be the one thing that is the most consistent in a program, as it's
>> usually the first interface to your program people see.
>Sure. As long as your re-wrapper doesn't reinterpret my intentional
>breaks and indentation, I think the trade-off is in favor of
>re-wrapping (assuming you can tell something intelligent about how
>wide to make the output). However, once it starts garbling what I've
>written in the comment, the trade-off starts to go the other way.

Yes that's a reasonable argument ;-) But, like all languages, C++, English,
Jam, ReST; the difficulties are in communicating intent. This is why I'm
slowly adding things like the "::" pre-formated indicator. And I'm trying to
mimic ReST because it's an already proven model for communicating intent in
the code documentation domain.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]


Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at