Re: Sphinx integration
Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 28/09/11 15:16, Dave Abrahams wrote: > 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. I understand the alias. Sphinx uses docutils, thus docutils name can alias Sphinx to some extent. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org