Pete Robbins wrote:
On 14/11/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pete Robbins wrote:
> Definitely!
Done under revision r474696. On linux, run configure with the
--enable-doxygen option. It's off by default. On Windows run doxygen
Doxyfile.w32 from the doc directory. The doc is generated under
doc/doxygen.
The same scheme can be replicated for SDO.
> We did this with the tree originally so some of the code has
> comments in the correct Doxygen format. Is there an option to insert
> comment
> headers into the source?
>
The doxygen format is described there:
http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/docblocks.html. You can write doc
blocks anywhere except inside the body of a function. What did you mean
by "is there an option to insert comment headers into the source"?
I meant can we get Doxygen to insert the correct format comment block
above
methods etc. with blank content. I'm sure not all methods have the
correct
comments! So for a method
int fred(string x);
we need
/**
@param x
@return
**/
int fred(string x);
Just a thought! We need to document our code in a consistent way which it
isn't at the moment.
Cheers,
Ok I understand now.
It doesn't look like Doxygen can generate comment skeletons. Usually
editors provide templates and content assist for this. You can find a
list of plugins/helpers for popular editors there:
http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/helpers.html, including a Visual
Studio 2005 helper there:
http://doxycomment.sourceforge.net/vs2005_addin.html.
I thought that Eclipse CDT templates could be used for this but I've not
been able able to get them to work... so I'll type these comments by
hand for now, and may try to write an Eclipse plugin to automate the
generation of comment skeletons when I get tired of it :)
Doxygen supports Qt style comments:
/*! ...
and
javadoc style comments
/** ...
Both styles seem to support
\param
\return
and
@param
@return
Could people in the group experiment a bit with the available editor
tools and say which style they like? Details and examples can be found
there: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/docblocks.html
Personally I'm OK with either one, the most important is to get
meaningful text after the \ or @ :) We could also use both styles for a
while, time to get some experience with any of the tools, and do a
global change to our "official" format later.
Comments?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
