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

sob., 20 cze 2026 o 17:05 Arnaud Becheler <[email protected]>
napisał(a):

> 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 :)
>

Thank you!
The video pace is definitely more friendly to people from my generation :)
The introductory paragraph also makes a huge difference! Upon reading the
intro one gets the impression that working with graphs and Boost.Graph is
easy! This is a huge contribution to the library.

Now, the Compiler Explorer link should be also updated to match the
modified example.

Regards,
&rzej;


> 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/KVS32ONCXAZAM6G2LHQA33PLCN2T27IV/