Re: Sphinx integration
Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 28/09/11 13:24, Daniel James wrote: > On 28 September 2011 13:04, Mateusz Loskot<[email protected]> wrote: >> On 27/09/11 00:46, Mateusz Loskot wrote: >>> >>> Would it be valid to discuss Sphinx for Boost? >> >> Reconsidering my thoughts on that and I've come to conclusion >> that a strict unification of writing documentation across all the >> libraries in the Boost collection would be impossible and probably >> impractical. It's more a wishful thinking of mine. >> I'm also lacking of better idea(s) myself. >> >> I have to fight the complexity of documentation workflow >> where I suffer of it myself, it is in Boost.Geometry. > > Well, if you can demonstrate how well a solution works, it could see > more uptake. Good point. > For sphinx, a good start might be to convert the existing > docutils based documentation to sphinx, if possible. What you mean as docutils? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org