Tim, I won't get your hopes too high, but if you really need this, I can play some tricks to make these docs more readable by: - adding styles to color- and font-separate parts of info - adding a TOC on the left instead of those tabs, TOC can be a drop-down menu which also acts as a list of classes - adding a small frame which shows members of a class and each member on a separate page instead of all functions on one page (i have only done this for C code so far, but Java should also be ok) - looking at current markup and suggesting changes that Doxygen would understand better (we could then accumulate those changes and make them a cleanup script; it won't always work because diff authors use diff markups, but some things it'll fix for sure) - i don't know, play some more...
On Jan 31, 2008 8:18 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nadya Morozova wrote: > > I won't say I'm a vigorous fan of Doxygen for fear of being disliked by > Java > > programmers, but I think a tool that parses both C and Java code is > > preferable for a project that has both. I've used Doxygen for a while > now, > > and although some things might get tricky and you have to do stupid > things > > to have output your way, Doxygen is generally rather good. My expertise > is a > > bit more limited in regard to Javadoc. > > That's cool, I know you are a documentation wizz <g>. What sort of > thing do you think we can do with the code comments we have got already? > > > Perhaps, if you gave specific examples of what you want to achieve, i'd > say > > whether and how it could be done. > > Make it usable, and pretty :-) > > > I don't know any freeware auto-generation > > tools that do as good as these two. I've wanted to use a commercial tool > > DocOMatic on a different project (just out of curiosity, why do they > want us > > to pay $1000 for it?) - but failed, because the tool had no free trial! > > > > Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have much choice in API > > documentation generation tools. We could tweak the existing tools, > and/or > > post-process the resulting docs to get the results we want. > > I'd be happy to see somebody prove me wrong, so that we get a better > tool > > for our docs. > > Ah well, I guess we have to keep banging sticks and rocks together for > the time being. > > Regards, > Tim > -- Cheers, Nadya
