Re: The beauty of LATEX
Matias Capeletto <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAJiTyxzGHDNupW6j48pgayw-NSBNYSJJh6bBqrYPSTfqK1KS5Q@mail.gmail.com> |
2011/10/17 Mateusz Łoskot <[email protected]>: > On 17 October 2011 08:55, Matias Capeletto <[email protected]> wrote: >> For what is worth, here is a survey of where we are standing now with >> the documentation formats used by boost libraries. As Boost 1.48, >> there are 94 libraries and the formats used are: >> >> Total : 94 >> Quickbook : 40 >> Boostbook : 13 >> HTML : 34 >> Rst : 6 >> Doxygen : 1 > > I think this numbers are a bit biased. > Boost.Asio, for instance, generates documentation from Doxygen comments > and uses QuickBook for all the rest, it is non-code-comments content. I tried to be fair but it was a quick overview, feel free to change the numbers if you spot a mistake. Would you like to place Boost.Asio under the Doxygen category? Or create a new Quickbook+Doxygen one? Anyways, I do not want to pollute the original question in this thread. I was just curious to see how many libs were using Quickbook (and DocBook) as the basis for their docs. Best regards Matias _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs