Re: Sphinx integration
Dean Michael Berris <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGMDWPqa=RAsc-unBjBbeGd54+yWon9H=3Cemae_KT_WPKbiSg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > Yes. :) >>> 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. > I'm not in the business of saying whether something is superior to anything else. I just think they're different. That said, I find writing/reading in ReST is much more enjoyable for me than doing it in quickbook. Although I started off with quickbook, I find that it forced me to think more like a programmer than a writer. ReST is the opposite which is good if the intention is to write documentation that is meant to be read. That is IMHO. Cheers -- Dean Michael Berris http://goo.gl/CKCJX