"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd@hotmail.com> writes:
David B. Held wrote:
Ok, if the Boost style documentation is too simple, and docs like Spirit are too cute, what is a nice, happy median?
Have you looked at the BoostBook generated docs :). Let me know what you think of the current L&F: I have updated this a while ago to try and bridge the gap between the two looks (the docs now have Spirit-style navigation). See http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32_metacomm/doc/html/inde... for the new-stle docs.
FWIW, I'm not entirely opposed to frames (as long doc pages have a "link to this page" somewhere. I really like the general format that Aleksey is generating for the next revision of the MPL docs, which use frames.
If we're going to demand uniformity in licensing, should we also demand more uniformity in documentation?
I agree on this. At the moment, we have the docs written in HTML, those in BoostBook format (like Boost.Any and the BBv2 docs) and the Spirit docs which have their own format.
And others; we used ReST for the iterator library.
As far as I understand it, the BoostBook tool is relatively new and has a learning curve, so it will take some time to migrate the docs to this format.
And it requires writing in XML :-( or translating to it :-|.
As for the Spirit docs, they have their own sourceforge area as well as being a part of Boost, so forcing them to change doc format wouldn't be fair.
Spirit doesn't have reference docs, though. It only has a long tutorial. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com