[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Kim Barrett <kab.conundrums@verizon.net> asserted that the existing detail in the documentation was useful and necessary and that somehow I had done the library a disservice by removing detail. Yet, when asked: boost@lists.boost.org spake the secret code <le30md$p9o$7@ger.gmane.org> thusly:
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
boost@lists.boost.org spake the secret code <6F8C95D8-715C-4900-96A1-4EAF1B4B8EC8@verizon.net> thusly:
[...] So when I hear someone suggesting that there is too much detail in the Boost.Test documentation, and that some of it should be thrown away, I get very nervous.
Have you looked at my version of the documentation? <http://user.xmission.com/~legalize/tmp/boost.test/libs/test/doc/html/index.html>
What is missing from there that you feel needs to be documented?
I receive no response. I can therefore only conclude that the new documentation isn't missing anything that's necessary as I asked this question in February, almost three months ago. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>