Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:20 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
>> It seems to me that while lib developers may be interested in the "big
>> table", most users, unless they care extraordinarily about
>> portability, will want to know about individual compiler results. I
>> wonder if we shouldn't be assembling the HTML on-the-fly for all
>> tables, and just having testers upload jam logs? I know this goes
>> against the grain of Beman's desire to produce the HTML with C++ code
>> because of CGI portability issue, but I have the sense that until we
>> have a true portable C++ virtual machine this might be the wrong kind
>> of job for our favorite language.
>>
>> -Dave
>
> One option would be to dump the tests in some XML format, because we can
> easily transform that into the various HTML pages we'd want with an XSLT
> processor. Sourceforge has xsltproc available on its servers...
Any format that can be processed with a language (xslt, python, perl,
whatever) that SF has already built and installed on all the servers
would do, and I don't care at all which one we choose.
> [Yes, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I really
> don't think we should ever be generating documentation directly from
> C++ code.]
I can't see any relevance. Care to explain?
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
