Doug Gregor wrote: > > IMO, it's a tradition that should change. I agree completely with > > Volodya and Jeff. > > IMHO, header-based documentation makes sense for course-grained > headers, but not for fine-grained headers. The C++ standard has > course-grained headers, and I think it works relatively well to use > header-based documentation.
I disagree. It works good as normative text -- what each header should contain. But when you want to find istream_iterator, where do you look? In <interator> or in <iostream>? > But once glance at the library reference > for Date-Time shows how the header-based documentation system really > breaks down with fine-grained headers. Yea. > One alternative is to combine the synopsis from each header into a > single synopsis for the library, I'd suggest not synopsis, but only *symbol* names. Even for relatively small program_options docs I find it hard to find specific function or class because of long template declarations. > and then add a "Where Defined" section > to each reference page (as in the Graph library). As I've mentioned, this is needed anyway. > Arbitrary groupings > could come later. Just be warned that I have zero time to work on this > for at least the next week and a half, so this is definitely > post-1.32.0. No problem. Since I have no idea how to implement this, I'd appreciate anything you could do, even if that will take time. - Volodya ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
