Re: Boost.Graph Documentation Got a Facelift: Ship it Or Not ?

Hi Andrzej,

Thanks for clarifying. I just began integrating your feedback, a preview is
available here: https://509.graph.prtest3.cppalliance.org/graph/index.html
The video has been lengthened by 1/3 :)

Best,
Arno


On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 4:26 PM Andrzej Krzemienski <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> wt., 16 cze 2026 o 14:02 Arnaud Becheler <[email protected]>
> napisał(a):
>
>>
>> > Absolutely yes! Thank you so much for doing this! It is already way
>> more user friendly and accessible.
>>
>> Thank you Andrzej, you're welcome! This was a group effort, we can thank
>> the Alliance for the support, Joaquin and Jeremy for their regular advice,
>> contributors and workshop's attendees (Andrea Cassioli, Sylvain Ducomman
>> and others) for useful feedback :)
>>
>
> Then let me extend my thanks to the entire team. You have made Boost a
> better place!
>
>
>> > For instance, I do not see a Reference section
>>
>> Oopsie I just understand now you mean a flat list of symbols ?
>>
>
> Yes, this.
>
>
>> Two things worth noting. The page itself is titled with the code spelling
>> (`predecessor_recorder`), it's only the left-nav label that is prose
>> ("Predecessor Recorder"). And the search bar is meant to cover exactly this
>> case: typing `predecessor_recorder` takes you straight to the page, since
>> the identifier is indexed from the heading and body.
>>
>> On bringing back the old flat symbol table (table_of_contents.html): it
>> was actually highly incomplete and it's mixing purposed (flat symbols refs
>> + conceptual navigation), so I'd rather not reinstate it as-is, the search
>> box is the better lookup-by-symbol path going forward. It is also much
>> easier and robust to maintain (new contributors should not have to touch
>> high-level pages to document algorithm-specific symbols). If you ever
>> search a symbol and it doesn't surface, just ping me, that's a much more
>> useful signal than the old list. Long-term I would love to have an
>> automated extraction of such symbols (mrdocs to the rescue), that would
>> solve your question and my worries. Again, feedback welcome.
>>
>
> I didn't mean my comment to sound like another request. I thought your
> request was to verify if nothing is missing relative to the old docs. And I
> was not able to do this in a short time.
> I am only grateful that you are doing this.
>
> > Oh, and the original authors from Indiana University need to be listed
>> in the front matter.
>
> Agreed, it's related to the Reference question I mentioned: original
>> authors, the "How to Cite" question, the BGL book etc. What would you
>> personally want to see mentioned and where ?
>>
>
> I think the convention is to put the author names on the landing page. For
> instance,
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_91_0/doc/html/accumulators.html
>
> Regards,
> &rzej;
>
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/HFZDCVEZIDQRTTEOZYNRR4X3YQ323RJ6/