Re: [boost] Recommendations for documentation authors

On 1/2/24 18:13, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

wt., 2 sty 2024 o 12:52 Andrey Semashev via Boost mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> napisał(a):

To me, QuickBook is the most powerful tool for writing documentation, so I'm not going to recommend anything new. As the changelog says, the latest version supports direct HTML output, but I haven't tried it. I imagine, it should work for simple docs without BoostBook/DocBook specific features.

So, when you are recommending QuickBook, does this also imply BoostBook/DocBook, or are you treating them as separate tools?

QuickBook+Doxygen (which both produce BoostBook) is the combination I'm using and recommending. This combination implies BoostBook usage in background. No, it doesn't mean one has to *learn* BoostBook to be able to use it. In fact, I have never written in BoostBook through all the years I have used this combination, aside from a few escapes in QuickBook templates. Which may no longer be necessary with modern QuickBook. I'll note that there was a time when people wrote docs in raw BoostBook, which is probably why QuickBook appeared in the first place. Those times are long passed now. BoostBook *is* a separate tool, though, as you have to configure it in the Jamfile. Most of the time the configuration can be copy-pasted from one of the many libraries in Boost and then tweaked to your liking.