Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-27 13:56:45

On 27/09/11 01:09, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Has anyone considered it?
> I/we use it in cpp-netlib for both docs and the website.

So, you write it in reStructuredText, right?

>> Would it be valid to discuss Sphinx for Boost?
> I for one would welcome discussion about it.

The major problem I have with the current Boost documentation framework
is too big diversity of documenting tools and workflows, lack of content
writing uniformity, none or not ideal source-to-doc
translation (e.g. Doxygen issues). Remembering long way of documenting
Boost.Geometry, I'm not 100% happy with the results.
Perhaps it's only my opinion.
I'm not going to ignite any fermentation. I'm just curious, if
boostdoc/quickbook is really superior to, say,
reStructuredText + Sphinx tandem.

Best regards,

Mateusz Loskot,
Charter Member of OSGeo,
Member of ACCU,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC