Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:52:28 -0800 (PST)
From: <rbb@covalent.net>
To: Apache List <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: Re: doxygen vs. scandoc
In-Reply-To: <3A901C1A.89C06153@algroup.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102190251490.4005-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


Feel free.  I posted my opinions about all of these a long timw ago.  When
I last looked at them, doxygen didn't work well at all.

Ryan

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Ben Laurie wrote:

> So, tell me again why we're using scandoc and not doxygen? Having got
> rather frustrated with scandoc, I just built the latest release of
> doxygen and pointed it at Apache. Man! The output is _beautiful_.
> Hyperlinked, colour-coded source. It understands macros (selectively),
> so it can handle the AP_DECLARE() stuff. It can even produce LaTeX
> output, and searchable source. I see a prototype for XML output, and I
> may even be persuaded to make that real.
>
> In short, it rocks, and (in comparison at least) scandoc sucks.
>
> I vote we switch immediately. And I volunteer to do all the header
> changes to make it happen. BTW, it probably isn't major to make it
> possible to use scandoc as well, but I am not volunteering to do that.
>
> BTW, if you want to try it, add a \file (or @file) directive to a header
> or two, coz otherwise it doesn't document global declarations, and you
> miss 90% of the fun.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
>
> "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
> doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
>
>


_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------