incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: Doxygen possible in STDCXX?
Date Wed, 07 May 2008 22:28:38 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:24 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Doxygen possible in STDCXX?
> 
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
> Martin Sebor
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:52 AM
> >> To: Eric Lemings
> >> Cc: Marc Betz
> >> Subject: Re: Doxygen possible in STDCXX?
> >>
> [...]
> > I would suggest using the printf directives (STDCXX-871) but there's
> > no C++ code (or not enough) related to that component to use as a
> > proof-of-concept.
> 
> I don't see why the language would matter. The documentation
> will look the same regardless if rw_printf() is implemented
> in C or in assembly.

Well to analyze potential risk associated with translating C++ -- the
documented vs. implemented C++ function signatures that Marc alluded
to for example.

> 
...
> 
> My feeling is that unless we set up an infrastructure to
> automatically generate and publish the generate docs it's
> going to hard to get motivated to go to the trouble of
> adding Doxygen-style comments even in the test driver.

Infrastructure?  What infrastructure?  All that's needed is
Doxygen and a Doxyfile and even the latter is optional...
technically at least.

Brad.

Mime
View raw message