Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-07 20:04:26

on Fri Oct 07 2011, Mateusz Loskot <> wrote:

> On 07/10/11 02:51, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> on Thu Oct 06 2011, Mateusz Loskot<> wrote:
>>> In my opinion, docs formatted/presented like this
>>> will put most readers off. Looks terrible, if I may express my
>>> opinion.
>>> Format and layout of class documentation in the standalone version
>>> is way better.
>> Which one is that?
> This is what Paul and myself call standalone Doxygen documentation
> IOW, it's native Doxygen HTML output.
>>> I still vote for Boost.Asio docs as an examplar.
>> +1
>> Please view
> Wow! If I have known this presentation, it would have saved
> me a lot of typing. Awesome!

Yeah, we should refer to it from whatever Boost page we have on

> The very first question that came to my mind, what is wrong with C++?
> Why documentations in scripting world can be clean, friendly,
> usable and pretty?

I don't think this is a C++-vs-scripting thing. However, we generally
have a lot more to document and hold ourselves to a much higher standard
of rigor than most people writing in scripting languages.

> Looking at slides 30-37, I'm wondering...why Boost documentation
> looks and feels more like a scientific paper than a handbook.
> The handbooks are for mortals. The scientific paper are not.
> The Boost is developed by immortals, so let them use scientific paper.
> The Boost is for use mostly by mortals who need handbook, but not
> scientific paper, about Boost.
> If Boost documentation (and website) aims the slides 30-37, it will be
> a rockstar documentation.
> Is it possible at all?

Yes, it's possible. Are you familiar with
That could be revived. Matias Capeletto was the driving force, IIRC.

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

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