Re: Sphinx integration

On 05/10/11 15:18, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Oct 05 2011, Mateusz Loskot<mateusz-AT-loskot.net>  wrote:
>> On 05/10/11 00:13, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Tue Oct 04 2011, Mateusz Loskot<mateusz-AT-loskot.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/11 23:03, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>>
>>> OK.  IMO you should think about literate programming as well in
>>> this design space.
>>
>> Do you mean to start thinking about where are the gaps of missing
>> features in current Boost documentation tools? What tools should
>> be patched with the features I discuss here as missing? BoostBook
>> or QuickBook...or new tool(s)?
>
> Nothing in particular.  [Google literate programming in case you
> didn't know that's a thing].

I know the concept. I just misread it in your post.

> LitRe is a literate programming tool.  It makes a huge difference in
> catching incorrect example code.

I'll take a look at LitRe.

>>>>> What's the solution?  I think someone needs to survey the
>>>>> kinds of things people are doing with QuickBook and
>>>>> BoostBook, so that we can assess whether other systems can
>>>>> support our needs.
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to help with this.  Can we make a list of
>>>> questions ("the kind of things") do we want to answer with the
>>>> survey?
>>
>> Would you have anything to add here? Or, irrelevant?
>
> When I said "survey" I meant it as a verb, i.e. not so much a survey
> with questions as taking a look through the documentation in the
> source tree and figuring out which features are in use.

That's what I understood and I meant questions as "what a surveyor
should look at/look for".

> On the other hand, maybe love for QuickBook is strong enough around
> here that we're stuck with it, in which case we shouldn't waste time
> on that and should be looking for ways to replace other parts of the
> toolchain.

Good point.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Member of ACCU, http://accu.org