Subject: [ggl] Re: rtree ?
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz)
Date: 2011-11-30 16:43:18
2011/11/29 Barend Gehrels <barend_at_[hidden]>:
>
> Great, of course. I did have a quick scan.
>
> My first (and major) question is, why BoostBook? QuickBook is the popular
> and recommended way, and besides that using QuickBook would interoperate
> much better with Boost.Geometry documentation...
I just wanted to start from more native interface since I've never
used any of them. I've switched to QuickBook already. New version is
available.
> Before review we used Doxygen for our documentation. Many reviews criticized
> that and favoured QuickBook. QuickBook is also great. So we wanted to move
> to Quickbook, but at the same time not loose automatic documentation, which
> Doxygen does very well. So we first tried using the existing XSLT templates
> to go from Doxygen to BoostBook. This is used by e.g. ASIO. However, that
> did not always too well, for us. And I wanted more possibilities without
> having to fight against XSLT each time... Therefore we created a (quite
> simple) tool to translate from Doxygen to Quickbook.
>
> It is written in more detail on my blog:
> http://barendgehrels.blogspot.com/search/label/quickbook
Ok, thanks.
> I have the same question for tests, why not the pattern Boost.Geometry is
> using?
>
> And for samples (there are not yet, no problem, but it would often be
> helpful) please also conform to Boost.Geometry's current approach (i.e. a
> sort of unit-samples, which can be very nicely integrated with QuickBook and
> our conversion tool...)
Should tests use hardcoded data or may it be randomized? Or should
there be 2 types od tests, if I want to use this kind of input? First,
using not changing data for regression tests and the other one, using
arbitrary data, for local testing only?
Regards,
Adam