Andreas Scherer writes: > Has anyone considered to apply Doxygen to the LilyPond sources?
See these threads http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2004-03/msg00226.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2004-04/msg00083.html there were some good intentions, but not much has happened. > I'm aware that the internal comments are not doxygen'erated, > however, Doxygen is capable to analyze plain C/C++ codes and to > generate at least rudimentary "documentation" in various output > formats. As Han-Wen said, a docstring mechanism would be preferrable, but doxygen doc is better than nothing -- if it can offer some basic quality. > Now, when I click through the HTML "documentation" and look at the images of > the include graphs, I find that many "#include" directives are redundant, Thanks for looking into this. > If there is interest in this group for such an improvement of the C/C++ > sources of LilyPond, I would volunteer to make the necessary modifications, > i.e., to remove the superfluous #include directives, while guaranteeing the > correct compilability of the system. Any comments? That would be great. Make sure to use latest CVS and send unified diffs, (cvs diff -u). Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
