Re: Sphinx integration
Dave Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
on Wed Sep 28 2011, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote: > 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? Docutils == ReStructuredText, for all intents and purposes. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com