Re: The beauty of LATEX

Mateusz Łoskot <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation
Message-ID <CABUeae8pEzCy4b4B9r4ikR3JY2CQdLBVq98uTCiEiw-Z==+O8A@mail.gmail.com>
On 17 October 2011 13:08, Matias Capeletto <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?

I'm not the Boost.Asio author to fix a label on it.

> Or create a new Quickbook+Doxygen one?

I think it is a good compromise.
Let's think of all documentation technologies projects use.

> 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.

Understood.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Member of ACCU, http://accu.org
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.