On 27 May 2014 14:06, Vaclav Petras <wenzesl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Luca, >
Hi Vaclav > > Yes. Sphinx for the whole lib/python (grass.*). I'm not sure if additional > separate for PyGRASS would make sense, probably not. Then it would be nice > to have Sphinx for GUI (gui/wxpython). > I think the same, have documentation for the whole lib/python without separation of pygrass > Then I would disable all Python things (lib/python and gui/wxpython, the > later for sure) in Doxygen because especially GUI creates a mess in Doxygen. > It seems that Doxygen does not handle well all the things about Python > modules, packages (especially if lib/python/* is changed into grass.*) and > other Python features. > > So than we would have tree documentations. Doxygen for C libraries, one > Sphinx for Python libraries and one Sphinx for GUI. > I like this proposal, I could finish to work on pygrass documentation and later start to prepare sphinx for other python library and gui >> - could I replace doxigen instruction with sphinx instruction in >> pygrass docstrings? (for example replace @param with :param) >> > Yes. And remove the exclamation marks at the beginning of docstrings > ("""!...). (They are just using some undocumented Doxygen feature to enable > processing of commands instead of using verbatim text for docstrings.) > +1 >> >> [0] http://grass.osgeo.org/grass71/manuals/pygrass/index.html > > > Nice, perhaps bit too conservative design but fits to GRASS manual nicely. I > wish to have something similar for Doxygen but I'm afraid of maintenance > issues. > what do you mean for "conservative design" ? > Vaclav -- ciao Luca http://gis.cri.fmach.it/delucchi/ www.lucadelu.org _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev