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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost::Test Samples?
From: Jeffrey Walton (noloader_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-07 07:21:06

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Ovanes Markarian <om_boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
You guys are doing a great job. Pat yourselves on the back over a free beer.

Jeff