Re: libstdc++ documentation

[Rich Churcher <churcher at ihug dot com dot au>]

Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:59:15PM +1100, Rich Churcher wrote:
> > I'm just wondering - is anyone in the project actively writing
> > documentation at this time?  Who can I talk to about contributing
> > updated or additonal documention?
> 
> Gaby and I mostly handle documentation.  Other people (Felix Natter,
> Nicolai Josuttis) have contributed large chunks of the current doc set.
> This mailing list is the appropriate place to talk about documentation.
> 
> We are "actively" writing docs, for not-quite-top-priority values of
> "actively".  We try very hard to ensure that what already exists is kept
> up-to-date, but I personally only get time to write new things once in
> a while.

Well, I have time (he said, with trepidation ;o)   I write fairly
well, and have been looking around for a way to contribute to V3.
I've already come to the reluctant conclusion that my C++ isn't
good enough to contribute code to the project in any useful way.

I think I'd make a pretty fair ghost writer for those among us who
detest writing documentation, but have all the requisite technical
understanding.  Are there outstanding areas that should be addressed
before GCC 3.0?  For example, what about a document discussing changes
from V2 to V3, implications for old code, tasks involved in upgrading,
and so on?


> What do you have in mind?  :-) More and better documentation is
> always a Good Thing.

Sure :o)

I would love to see a V3 Manual come together, in a more cohesive form
than what we have now.  Something that can be searched and printed.
With an index and table of contents <g> you know, like a Real Library
Implementation <*cough*>.  

What level of information this should include on standard library
features (as opposed to libstdc++ implementation) I couldn't
say... certainly, I would imagine an overview of the implementation
would be beneficial: the headers and their interactions/dependencies,
areas which are not yet caught up with the standard, etc.  I just get
the feeling we need something a bit more formalised & complete for the
next major release.

My apologies if this issue has been brought up before, but I couldn't
track anything down in the archives.  I feel a bit silly suggesting
all this, being only a self-taught amateur and not qualified in the
slightest...  however, for what it's worth I have some free time and a
sizeable quota of patience.  Hell, I'll just do proofing and editing
if that's what's needed.  Or update and maintain web pages.  Or add
FAQ items, if people can suggest likely candidates.

-- 
Cheers,
Rich.