On 1 January 2015 at 20:02, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 01/01/15 10:33, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >> No particular system was clearly dominant when Walter invented ddoc. Also >> I >> might be frequenting the wrong circles; most people I know and myself >> aren't >> fluent at all with doxygen. -- Andrei > > > It is really trivial to learn and quite effective. I used it years ago for > a C/C++ project; when I encountered Ddoc my reaction was, "OK, it's > basically a custom and slightly weirder-looking variant of Doxygen..." > > It has some _very_ nice features such as the easy inclusion of LaTeX > formulas into documentation, and in my experience Doxygen markup is much > more readable-in-source than Ddoc. > > Three things I'm not sure about: (i) does it allow definitions of custom > macros as with Ddoc (although I'm not sure how necessary that is in > practice); (ii) I have a nasty feeling its @keyword markup syntax (e.g. > @return @param etc.) might not play nice with D code examples; (iii) I > suspect we'd have to do some integration work getting D support into Doxygen > in order to enjoy the best of all its features.
Doxygen supports both @param and \param. It would be really good if doxygen supported D comprehensively. I often port C code to D which already has doxygen commentary. I never port the doxygen docs to ddoc though.
