Subject: Re: [boost] Improving Boost Docs
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-15 00:16:48
On 8/14/2017 5:28 PM, Soul Studios via Boost wrote:
>> The main objection to the quickbook - boostbook - doxygen way of
>> generating documentation, as I understand it, is that it is very hard
>> to generate a different look-and-feel to the documentation from the
>> standard one created by the stylesheets. OTOH others think having the
>> same look-and-feel of all Boost docs is an advantage. So I do not
>> think there is any way around this basic disagreement.
>
> My main objection was that it's overly complicated and unnecessary.
Why do you find it overly complicated ?
> It's an absolutely ridiculous toolchain, that one shouldn't have to
> learn merely in order to write Docs.
The only thing you have to learn is Quickbook and doxygen. I see nothing
"ridiculous" in that. You can ignore boostbook/docbook completely.
> If there had been an insistence on a particular look-and-feel with a
> supplied .css, I would've been fine with that. Instead I gave up.
No one forces you to use Quickbook or doxygen. But your emotional
response to both is very surprising.