Re: [boost] [metaparse] review

2015-06-03 22:55 GMT+02:00 Abel Sinkovics :

Hi Andrzej,

On 2015-06-03 22:32, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

...

2015-06-03 21:44 GMT+02:00 Abel Sinkovics :

I am not quite sure either. Sorry, if I am being imprecise. For instance, I am rather impatient (and I suspect I am not the only one), and expect that I will learn from the documentation in less than three minutes, what is its scope, what I will and will not able to do with it, and how using it will look like. In the metaparse doc, I was not able to do that, I was forced to read the tutorial, whose pace is too slow for me. I got impatient and distracted.

My remark is not to the amount of information, but to how it is ordered. For instance, when you look at the documentation of Optional ( http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_58_0/libs/optional/doc/html/index.html), in the first page you get a short example of how it is used and why you want to use it. The potential user can immediately make a decision whether she wants this library or not.

I hope I am making sense. I cannot describe it any better. Perhaps it is just personal preference.

If I understand you correctly, some example from which one can "easily" tell what the library is about would make sense in the documentation (probably on the first page).

For optional it is easy, as its scope is small and the concept is well known. For a compile-time parser generator library it is more difficult to come up with such an example,

Agreed. It may be that this is a problem domain that makes the docs more difficult.

but I'll try my best.

How a bout writing a string literal for boost::rational<int>. It uses only raw floating-poit literals, accepts forms without exponent, forms the nominator and denumerator and turns them into boost::rational<int>. Would that take long? Regards, &rzej