Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Doxygen possible in STDCXX?
Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Martin Sebor
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Eric Lemings
Cc: Marc Betz
Subject: Re: Doxygen possible in STDCXX?
[...]
I would suggest using the printf directives (STDCXX-871) but there's
no C++ code (or not enough) related to that component to use as a
proof-of-concept.
I don't see why the language would matter. The documentation
will look the same regardless if rw_printf() is implemented
in C or in assembly.
Well to analyze potential risk associated with translating C++ -- the
documented vs. implemented C++ function signatures that Marc alluded
to for example.
...
My feeling is that unless we set up an infrastructure to
automatically generate and publish the generate docs it's
going to hard to get motivated to go to the trouble of
adding Doxygen-style comments even in the test driver.
Infrastructure? What infrastructure? All that's needed is
Doxygen and a Doxyfile and even the latter is optional...
technically at least.
As I said: "infrastructure to automatically generate and
publish the generated docs." I.e., someone needs to set
up a cron job to check out the sources, run Doxygen, and
publish the results on the stdcxx site.
Martin
