一个更好的升压参考？ [英] A Better Boost reference?

问题描述

这令我很反感约升压的事情是他们的文档。我需要的是一个很好的参考，而是说明一个很好的参考就是我，我会给例如：

The thing that really turns me off about Boost is their documentation. What I need is a good reference, and instead of explaining what a good reference is to me I would give example:

java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/
是的，我喜欢它。它也是这样的：
CP preference.com /维基/ STL /矢量/启动

java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/ Yes I love it. It is also this: cppreference.com/wiki/stl/vector/start

在另一方面我找到提升是这样的：
<一href=\"http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1%5F40%5F0/libs/smart%5Fptr/shared%5Fptr.htm\">http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1%5F40%5F0/libs/smart%5Fptr/shared%5Fptr.htm

On the other hand what I find about boost is something like this: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1%5F40%5F0/libs/smart%5Fptr/shared%5Fptr.htm

文本基本上有些长页面。几乎没有格式化，一些大胆的文字在这里和那里和元素之间希望一些联系。且不说 smart_ptr 是更好地记录的图书馆之一。

Basically some long page of text. Almost no formatting, some bold text here and there and hopefully some links between elements. Not to mention that smart_ptr is one of the better documented libraries.

如果您不觉得这和上面的例子，请停止阅读，而忽略这篇文章的区别。不要误会我的意思，我写C ++和我使用升压。在我的公司，我们使用他们的图书馆至少有4个，每一次我需要检查例如它得到了我的神经，通过他们的作文滚动的方法原型。是的，我知道，升压是一个合作项目和不同的库是由不同的团队开发的。

If you do not find the difference between this and the above examples please stop reading and ignore this post. Do not get me wrong, I write C++ and I use Boost. At my firm we use at least 4 of their libraries, still each and every time I need to check a method prototype for instance it gets me out of my nerves scrolling through their essays. And yes I know that Boost is a collaborative project and that different libraries are developed by different teams.

因此​​，没有任何的你Boost的参考分享我的失望和你知道一些更好的网站记录Boost库？

So does any of you share my disappointment with Boost's reference and do you know some better site documenting the Boost libraries?

推荐答案

在一般情况下，我没有找到文档的是的坏。一般来说再次，信息是地方在那里。我看到的主要问题是缺乏统一，因此很难找到的地方。正如你在你的问题写的文档是由不同的人，和不同的时间写的，而这可能是缺乏一个共同结构的原因。

In general, I don't find the documentation is that bad. In general again, the information is "somewhere" in there. The main problem I see is a lack of uniformity, making it difficult to find that "somewhere". As you write in your question, the docs were written by different people, and a different times, and that's probably the cause for this lack of a common structure.

从你例子举了Java和cp preference联系，我推断你更感兴趣的是比教程或动机的东西接口的概要。对于shared_ptr的，确实<一个href=\"http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1%5F40%5F0/libs/smart%5Fptr/shared%5Fptr.htm#Synopsis\"><$c$c>http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_40_0/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm#Synopsis提供你以后？

From the java and cppreference links you cite in example, I infer that you are more interested in the synopsis of the interface than in "tutorial" or "motivation" stuff. For shared_ptr, does http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_40_0/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm#Synopsis provide what you're after?

对于一些库，测试和榜样目录下的库/＆LT; LIBRARY_NAME方式＆gt; 是有用的。

For some libs, the "test" and "example" directories under libs/<library_name> are useful.

您可以张贴在升压用户和/或您的问题，意见和建议< A HREF =htt​​p://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-docs>文档邮件列表。从我看到那里，具体文件改进的建议通常是由库的维护者欢迎。

You may post your questions, comments and suggestions on the boost users and/or documentation mailing lists. From what I see there, specific documentation improvement suggestions are normally welcomed by the library maintainers.

这篇关于一个更好的升压参考？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！