David Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Sep 27 2007, Kirit Sælensminde
wrote: David Abrahams wrote:
on Sun Sep 23 2007, Kirit Sælensminde
wrote: I think there is a real difference in intent. The wiki doesn't seem to have any way to manage short snippets of code to show how to do particular things in the way that a cookbook site does. What's wrong with
{{{ #!cpp short your_code(here) { return something_interesting(); } }}}
?? Nothing, although maybe a "Source code" prompt and a big input box is easier for casual users.
A prompt? Input box? For the person editing the page?
I mean from the perspective of somebody who wants to get an example up on a web site where others will find it and it can become part of a larger collection than if they just published on their own blog. And of course not everybody has their own blog or web site. Log on to the site and just go to the "Add recipe" form. You'll see that it's structured in such a way as to make putting the example on the site easy and linking it to the relevant libraries easy. Of course this is only possible because of the much narrower focus of the site.
FWIW, I would very much prefer to see Boost's public web resources consolidated in the wiki.
Which wiki? The Clearcase one or the Trac one? The wiki software that underlies the cookbook site uses syntax very similar to that of Mediawiki (there's some syntax it doesn't support and it also has some extra syntax and one or two things are done differently, but all the basic syntax is the same). This means it isn't far off either the Clearcase wiki or the Quickbooks format. I've already talked to Matias about the possibility of taking the cookbook content and exporting to quickbooks. K