Neels wrote:
> BTW, for me, the argument isn't so much doxygen. I never use that HTML and if
> anyone does, please raise your hand. For me it's about reading the source
> tree.
> (I would very much enjoy dropping the weird doxygen syntax and markers)
Me too! I agree with every word Neels said i
Hi,
> while I wouldn't be against it if we were to start writing a whole new
> project, we have tons and tons of files already doing doxygen in the .c
> files, so I wouldn't start now doing differently and have mixed
> codebase. Also moving all current doxygen documentation to header files
> s
Hi Neels,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:06:07PM +0100, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> BTW, for me, the argument isn't so much doxygen. I never use that HTML and if
> anyone does, please raise your hand. For me it's about reading the source
> tree.
> (I would very much enjoy dropping the weird doxygen syntax
Hi all,
I'm pretty much with Pau here:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Pau Espin Pedrol wrote:
> Moreover, I don't really see a good reason for moving documentation to
> header files other than:
> * "My foobar editor decides it only parses header files"
> * A user may want to inspect do
BTW, for me, the argument isn't so much doxygen. I never use that HTML and if
anyone does, please raise your hand. For me it's about reading the source tree.
(I would very much enjoy dropping the weird doxygen syntax and markers)
There may also be the aspect of the license applying only to the .c
Hi,
while I wouldn't be against it if we were to start writing a whole new
project, we have tons and tons of files already doing doxygen in the .c
files, so I wouldn't start now doing differently and have mixed
codebase. Also moving all current doxygen documentation to header files
sounds lik
