On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:10:38 PM UTC-6, Robert Ramey wrote:
On 2/24/16 11:59 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
My point is that there are two ways to go:
a) convince boost library developers to create a whole new markup for their documentation so they can test/use your proposed infrastructure to add commenting to their documentation.
b) make a small optional add-on to boost book using xslt which would work with the markup they already have.
Now step back and consider which of the two strategies is more likely to result in convincing boost library authors to experiment with including commenting with their documentation?
I am not proposing using some new markup nor I am not proposing that all boost libraries jump ship to mkdocs either.
Then exactly what ARE you proposing?
I am proposing to use mkdocs to generate the documentation, but by no means am I proposing that ever boost library switch over to mkdocs. If other developers prefer quickbooks than thats great.
There should be plenty of room for more documentation tools for boost libraries.
More tools in order to ... what exactly.
The demos are pretty cool - but what are you trying to convince the rest of us to do?
For me, consume the documentation. However, Krzysztofmay who has started this thread is proposing something much larger.
Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost