Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX
From: Mateusz Łoskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-17 13:28:42

On 17 October 2011 13:08, Matias Capeletto <matias.capeletto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 2011/10/17 Mateusz Łoskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]>:
>> On 17 October 2011 08:55, Matias Capeletto <matias.capeletto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> For what is worth, here is a survey of where we are standing now with
>>> the documentation formats used by boost libraries. As Boost 1.48,
>>> there are 94 libraries and the formats used are:
>>>  Total : 94
>>>  Quickbook : 40
>>>  Boostbook : 13
>>>  HTML : 34
>>>  Rst : 6
>>>  Doxygen : 1
>> I think this numbers are a bit biased.
>> Boost.Asio, for instance, generates documentation from Doxygen comments
>> and uses QuickBook for all the rest, it is non-code-comments content.
> I tried to be fair but it was a quick overview, feel free to change
> the numbers if you spot a mistake.
> Would you like to place Boost.Asio under the Doxygen category?

I'm not the Boost.Asio author to fix a label on it.

> Or create a new Quickbook+Doxygen one?

I think it is a good compromise.
Let's think of all documentation technologies projects use.

> Anyways, I do not want to pollute the original question in this
> thread. I was just curious to see how many libs were using Quickbook
> (and DocBook) as the basis for their docs.


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