My understanding of the state of play with Phoenix is that the lovely Phoenix 2.0 is part of the not-yet-released Boost 1.36.0, and that the current release of Boost, 1.35.0 hosts Phoenix 1.2. Phoenix 2.0 has lovely documentation at http://spirit.sourceforge.net/dl_docs/phoenix-2/libs/spirit/phoenix/doc/html... but the corresponding documentation for V1.2, at http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/libs/spirit/phoenix/index.html is buried inside the Spirit docs, and is not nearly as good as the v2.0 documentation. In particular the v1.2 docs are very quiet about specific include file paths, which have also changed significantly for v2.0. Is there anything I've missed in all this? ----------- Also looking through the documentation of Boost libraries in general, the quality varies widely. Am I correct in believing this is due to whether the various library authors have found time to write quality documentation? Regards, Rob. -- ACCU - Professionalism in programming - http://www.accu.org
Robert Jones wrote:
Why not simply take 2.0? If you do not work to use the whole boost trunk, just take boost/spirit/home/phoenix and boost/fusion from the trunk and push them in the include path of your project, which should have higher priority that the one of your existing boost installation. That should be enough to make it work with a 1.35 or even older boost installation.
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Yep. That's what I've been doing. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
That's odd, should there be an alternative "standalone" Phoenix 2.0 package in the project's Sourceforge downloads page to make this a little simpler? :D It seems more and more people are getting more and more excited with Phoenix 2 and can't/won't wait to get it reviewed before using it, it just seems like the logical thing to do at this time... ;-) -- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
Ok, I'll have one up. :-P Cheers! -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Robert Jones wrote:
Thanks for the nice words :) There's been some minor doc changes to reflect the final include path structure. I updated the docs above.
Forget Phoenix-1.
Is there anything I've missed in all this?
One more. Phoenix is up for review, hopefully soon. I'd appreciate a review. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote: One more. Phoenix is up for review, hopefully soon. I'd appreciate a
review.
If I could I'd be delighted, but I don't feel remotely qualified to express such an authoritative opinion. Thanks to all for info tho'. - Rob -- ACCU - Professionalism in programming - http://www.accu.org
Robert Jones wrote:
Why not? I don't see any requirement on qualifications for making a review ;-) Do you? http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Robert Jones wrote:
Rob (and all others), Please reconsider. The goal of the review process is not just to check the internal details of the library, but also to look at how usable and understandable a library is. Yes, expert opinions on the details of the implementation are important to the process, but so are the experiences of interested potential users. After all, a library that gets all the technical details right but scares off every new user who takes a look isn't a very useful library. The only real requirement for submitting a review is that you have an interest and are willing to put in enough of your own time to have experiences to base your opinion on. Every review that meets that standard is a good and useful review. John Phillips PS - I'm one of the Review Wizards, but this is not an official statement. That said, I expect most of the active members of Boost would agree with the ideas here.
on Thu Jul 24 2008, John Phillips <phillips-AT-delos.mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
I sure do. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (6)
-
David Abrahams -
Dean Michael Berris -
Joel de Guzman -
John Phillips -
Mathias Gaunard -
Robert Jones