On Friday 05 June 2015 13:51:52 Robert Ramey wrote:
On 6/5/15 12:04 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On Friday 05 June 2015 11:42:46 Robert Ramey wrote:
On 6/5/15 10:32 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Krzysztof Jusiak
wrote:
I have recently added such functionality to Boost.DI documentation using https://disqus.com service.
This looks extremely interesting to me. Very slick and very worthy of consideration. Bears more investigation.
Personally, I'm not sure there's much value from this. Except, perhaps, as an easy way to report typos, errors and such, but then the comments themselves don't suit this activity very well. I'm looking at MSDN, for instance, and not seeing much value in the comments there -
I strongly disagree with this. I find documentation some boost libraries truely awful. Totally incomprehensible. I was inspired to propose this idea while having to do some work with PHP. PHP isn't the best language - but it's plenty good for the task which has been assigned to it. The documentation is quite good - much, much better than documentation for most boost libraries. And it has the feature of that users can clarify/expand/update information on any page. This turns out to be indispensable as the documentation tends to overlook many small corner cases or combinations. So I found it very, very helpful and I think boost libraries would also benefit from this facility. And let's not forget boost tools like bjam!
I don't think comments make the documentation any clearer. If you feel some library docs can be improved then just create a pull request. Adding comments would just contribute to the mess.
looks more like a mini version of StackOverflow.
LOL - Is that a criticism? I think StackOverflow is great and I use it all the time?
Not a criticism of StackOverflow. It's a good service for what it is - a Q&A board. It's just that documentation is not that kind of service.