At Tue, 25 May 2010 21:57:42 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou@lri.fr> wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Yup, but if Python was preferred I'd think Sphinx would be a better solution for documentation.
I'm all up for using Sphinx as a doc generator for boost. I think Troy Strashzeim has a spiffy boost-like template written in Sphinx.
Oh cool! That would be really neat.
Now I think for all intents and purposes I have to think about whether there is a way for Sphinx to understand Quickbook or use it underneath. I know it should be feasible to do but it's also some work that I would much rather avoid or not have to do. :D
Sphinx == docutils underneath. It has front-end readers, a transform phase, and backend writers. To get it to understand Quickbook one would write a Quickbook Reader component. http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0258/#docutils-project-model I suggest trying to avoid tackling this until later. It doesn't seem like there's an essential need to change the way we deal with quickbook. -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com