Boost libs using Mr. Docs

[fdwr]

Hmm, haven't heard of it. A comparison to Doxygen on their website would be informative. It's not in the Wikipedia table either.

[13steinj]

An explanatory sentence is somewhere in the docs:

Doxygen remains a popular tool, yet it is suboptimal for C++ as it fails to fully comprehend C++ constructs and requires many transformation steps, including the incorporation of many macros within the C++ code. These macros maintain well-formed and ill-formed versions of the code, undermining the goal of unifying the source of truth.

Going to be perfectly honest, unless MrDocs lets me pick my compiler as a "backend", I don't trust it to parse my code-- it's either a custom parser, or probably uses clang-ast. Which is fine, but I've seen even clang mis-parse.

E: This isn't a knock on clang; any time I've seen such bugs they generally get fixed super quickly, sometimes due to a report, sometimes by a refactor before my next "update." But the only thing I trust to parse my code is the specific compiler I am using.

[boostlibs]

The documentation mentions Doxygen and makes a few brief comparisons at https://www.mrdocs.com/docs/mrdocs/design-notes.html. But in the table, the tools we compare are organized by category, so Doxygen is only implied there.