Re: Sphinx integration
Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 27/09/11 01:09, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Has anyone considered it? > > I/we use it in cpp-netlib for both docs and the website. So, you write it in reStructuredText, right? >> Would it be valid to discuss Sphinx for Boost? > > I for one would welcome discussion about it. The major problem I have with the current Boost documentation framework is too big diversity of documenting tools and workflows, lack of content writing uniformity, none or not ideal source-to-doc translation (e.g. Doxygen issues). Remembering long way of documenting Boost.Geometry, I'm not 100% happy with the results. Perhaps it's only my opinion. I'm not going to ignite any fermentation. I'm just curious, if boostdoc/quickbook is really superior to, say, reStructuredText + Sphinx tandem. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org