On 27 August 2010 13:17, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:11:10PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> >> On 27/08/10 12:09, Anders Logg wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:12:59PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: >> >> On 27 August 2010 12:00, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 27/08/10 10:51, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: >> >>>> On 27 August 2010 11:31, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> The stuff that you have written for the Mesh class could easily >> >>>>>>>>>> go in >> >>>>>>>>>> to Mesh.h without causing too much clutter (reST looks nice), and >> >>>>>>>>>> I >> >>>>>>>>>> imagine it would be easy to add a folding mode to Emacs and other >> >>>>>>>>>> editors that will hide all lines starting with /// except for the >> >>>>>>>>>> first line. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> The simple script I wrote seems to work pretty well to extract the >> >>>>>>>>>> documentation. If it breaks somewhere, we could either improve the >> >>>>>>>>>> script or learn to write the code so the script does not break. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> The point here is that now the generated .rst files are in sync >> >>>>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>>>> the code, but in a day or two someone will edit one of the .h >> >>>>>>>>>> files in >> >>>>>>>>>> DOLFIN and the documentation and code will start to diverge. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On second thought, what do you mean by diverge? >> >>>>>> I have test scripts in place the checks if a function in *.h is >> >>>>>> documented in *.rst, and if a function in *.rst is still present in >> >>>>>> *.h. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If you mean the docstrings might change, we can perform the additional >> >>>>>> check where we test if the one liner docstring in *.h is present in >> >>>>>> the documentation in *.rst, then there can be no divergence and we can >> >>>>>> have short comments in the DOLFIN source code. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Yes, but this problem is already there for the Python interface and >> >>>>>>>> it >> >>>>>>>> won't go away. >> >>>>>>>> I guess the key thing to this is that a new feature or a change in >> >>>>>>>> DOLFIN source code is not complete until the documentation has been >> >>>>>>>> updated. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> To save ourselves work for now, we could just let doxygen create the >> >>>>>>> C++ >> >>>>>>> programmers reference and provide a link to it. It doesn't seem very >> >>>>>>> sensible that we write our own parser to document the C++ code. With >> >>>>>>> doxygen, we also get class diagrams. We can then scan the doxygen >> >>>>>>> documentation for each class and improve it iteratively. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Do you mean improve the Doxygen output, or the source code (*.h >> >>>>>> files)? If we improve the output we can get diverging docs and code. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I mean improve the strings following '///' in the .h files. In quite >> >>>>> some cases, just a few extra words would make a big difference. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'm coming around to putting all programming reference doc in the code. >> >>>>> I don't like lots of markup, but I don't see any other robust and >> >>>>> easily >> >>>>> maintainable solution. >> >>>> >> >>>> As I wrote above, a test script is in place to pick up >> >>>> missing/obsolete docs, very little extra work is needed to also test >> >>>> if the short docstring in the source code is correct. Then we run the >> >>>> tests as part of building the documentation. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> I just can't see myself hopping back and forth between the code and the >> >>> documentation when implementing and testing something new. >> >> >> >> I don't see why that would be necessary, the documentation can be >> >> updated and built later once the feature is in place and tested. >> >> But the feature can't be 'official' until it has been documented, it >> >> will require more self-discipline from the developers, which I don't >> >> think is necessarily a bad idea. >> >> >> >>>> I admit that the Doxygen output is much more detailed and the type >> >>>> information/links in argument lists is better compared to what is in >> >>>> Sphinx now, but that might change in the future (in Sphinx). On the >> >>>> downside, I personally find the Doxygen documentation overwhelming and >> >>>> I never use it for just that reason. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> Doxygen is an (imperfect) ready made solution for the programmers >> >>> reference - so one of my points is that we can forget about the C++ >> >>> programmers reference for now and get on with the more importance task >> >>> of documenting demos. We can return to the C++ programmers reference >> >>> later (which, as you say, may improve in Sphinx in the future). >> >> >> >> I'm fine with using Doxygen and simply put a link to the index page, I >> >> just think it is worthwhile to carefully discuss the pros and cons. >> >> >> >> The Python interface still has to be documented manually since there >> >> is no way to extract docstrings from the source code since the >> >> intention is to add docstrings to the module. >> >> >> >>> We can some some very limited work to improve the doxygen output which >> >>> will make it easier to navigate. >> >> >> >> I just don't see how this can be integrated easily with the output from >> >> Doxygen. >> >> We don't want to manipulate the output files since they will be >> >> re-generated whenever we build the docs. It is possible though to link >> >> to the html pages of classes/functions, but it won't be naturally >> >> supported like it would be if everything is in Sphinx. >> >> >> >> Kristian >> > >> > I think that the simple script we have now does a fairly good job at >> > extracting the documentation. I like having it as part of the >> > reST-based documentation (so it looks like it's part of the >> > documentation), rather than as a separate set of pages generated by >> > Doxygen. But I wouldn't mind having Doxygen-generated pages in >> > addition. >> >
I agree that having it in reST makes it look more like it is a part of the documentation. >> The doc generated by the script lacks links, which is a big drawback. >> >> Garth > > Links to other classes you mean? > > That would be easy to add to the script. We could just insert labels > and references into the generated code. What I have done with the links in the Mesh.rst so far is to put it in the *Arguments* section like: :cpp:class:`Point`, we can have still have this as part of the source code in the *.h files. Kristian > Perhaps we'll find that we should use a fancy tool like Doxygen, but > it seems it's not that complicated and it took a very short time to > write our own script. > > -- > Anders > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
