On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:30:56PM +0200, Kristian Ølgaard wrote: > 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
ok. Does everyone agree that as a first iteration, it would be good to at least try to: 1. Move over the stuff from Mesh.rst (in the doc repo) to Mesh.h (in DOLFIN) 2. Generate all .rst files in the doc repo from the C++ code 3. Evaluate if we can live with the more heavy commenting in the .h files (or find a folding mode) 4. Evaluate if the simple extract script does its job well enough ? -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
