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