On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:45:29PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:34:29 +0200, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:27:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:08:39 +0200, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de>
> > > wrote:
> > > > --- a/libavdevice/timefilter.c
> > > > +++ b/libavdevice/timefilter.c
> > > > @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@
> > > >
> > > > struct TimeFilter {
> > > > - /// Delay Locked Loop data. These variables refer to mathematical
> > > > - /// concepts described in:
> > > > http://www.kokkinizita.net/papers/usingdll.pdf
> > > > + // Delay Locked Loop data. These variables refer to mathematical
> > > > + // concepts described in:
> > > > http://www.kokkinizita.net/papers/usingdll.pdf
> > >
> > > This isn't "normal code", it's documenting a member of a struct. Nothing
> > > wrong with it being doxygen.
> >
> > Yes, but it's strictly file-level documentation. What point is there
> > in having it as Doxygen?
>
> You never know what can happen to it. We could move it to an internal header.
> Or we could even move it to a public header eventually.
What stops us from making comments Doxygen then? There is no point in
cluttering up the Doxygen we have with this until then.
Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
