Merrill Cornish writes:

David,

...

...

You're saying that all of those libraries have "here are all the wrong turns I took in developing this library" pages?

I'm not sure this exchange is going to be of any further use. You are getting defensive and sarcastic.

No, I'm really not. If you are serious about what you said, I want to verify. If you were just painting with a broad brush, I'd like you to get more specific so we can use your criticism to improve things.

It's not really possible to make any sweeping statements about the Boost libraries or their documentation since they are usually each developed by a different person with different backgrounds and different goals.

That's true; I also tried to make that point.

There's nothing inherently good or bad about that--it's simply a fact.

I think there are some things bad about it. It does cost us in the area of consistency.

I may in unusual in that I do RTFM--or at least try. In the case of Boost documentation, I have been repeated frustrated, usually in different ways in different libraries. So, no, all those libraries I have used don't have "wrong turn" documentation.

Oh. Well, given what you said above about consistency (or lack thereof), it would be very useful if you could direct specific criticism at the documentation for specific libraries (preferably in separate messages, with the library name in the subject line). The only way things can improve is if people like you will help us see where things are deficient. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com