Re: [Boost-users] Boost::Test Samples?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost::Test Samples?
From: Ovanes Markarian (om_boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-07 06:37:36

Hello *,

below are my 5 cents regarding the docs and other points...

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Jeffrey Walton <noloader <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
> I'm sorry you do not like the way documentation is structured. What would
> you
> prefer it to look like? which particular parts you find unclear?
>
The only point I can come up with, might be some shortcuts to recently used
topics and these are:
  - Runtime configuration parameters
  - Testing tools.

On the other hand I just did these 2 shortcuts in my browser.

> > The library is clearly abusing macros in a C++ library
>
> Can you show me an example of this abuse? And how would achieve the same
> result
> without using them?
>
IMO there are none. And if the op dislikes macros he can really use the
plain interface of the library which is also documented and supported ;)

>
> > (where are the predicates, functors, and other things I expect
> > to see from a C++ library? Bjarne would probably chuckle or laugh).
>
> I can't claim what Bjarne is doing or would do, but I did laugh when I read
> your
> statement above.
>
I can only support your statement, Gennadiy.

>
> > And the missing samples [broken links] are really not forgivable.
>
> I did not look at docs for quite some time. It is indeed possible some
> links
> gone stale. I need to revive the toolchain we use to generate docs and I'll
> fix
> these.
>
I use the latest version and everything is documented well and all links I
used to access were working fine.

>
> Gennadiy