> 100% agree :) > Doxygen docs are good in Java where there is only OO. In C++, I > like to > see thing like Boost.MultiIndex reference section.
To be honest, I find Javadoc'd documentation entirely unreadable and pretty far from helpful. > Independent of having a central place for std + boost concepts with > dynamic navigation tools to aid the user, I vot to treat each standard > C++ sublibrary as if we were documenting a boost library. > I would like to see a "std::vector docs" with a one minute tutorial, a > tutorial, an examples section, a reference, performance, etc. Tutorial-ish stuff is necessary and I agree that it would be great to have little five-minute tutorials, but they need to be separate from the reference docs. Reference material needs to be both concise and precise. Tutorials, introductions, and/or articles have a lot more freedom for wordiness and getting off-topic. For example, the std::list<> tutorial could have a great aside on "Why list.size() is theta(n)". I think tutorial sections should come first, with reference material in the back. > It is a lot of work... but we can take your approach here too. We can > add stubs and let people collaborate. We can maintain two version, > one public in the sandbox where anyone can add stuff. And a > moderated version inside boost that takes the best things of the > sandbox version. I think that's a pretty good idea. I was thinking something similar. Andrew Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
