"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Okay. So we'd like to have a way to say "this is an implementation detail,
>> don't document it" somewhere in the toolchain. It could easily be done
>> either as a BoostBook feature or as a feature of the Doxygen->BoostBook
>> translator.
>
> The other possibility is to exclude it from Doxygen processing which is
> easy to do, so we might not want to both implementing this in BoostBook...
Hey, I'd like to step back and strategize, here. I was going to start
making Synopsis generate BoostBook, but I don't want to invest the
time if Doxygen is going to "Just Work". Well, I might, just because
I don't want to write crufty Doxygen comments, but I really shouldn't.
So, my question is this: has Doxygen finally become a robust
parser/comprehender of C++, or is there still good reason to pursue
Synopsis? Conversely, If Doxygen is going to fail us eventually,
maybe Jeff and I should put our efforts into Synopsis. I have got
Synoposis to parse all of Boost.Python and it does a good job of
understanding everything, including some difficult metaprogramming
constructs. Incidentally, Jeff, Synopsis can recognize Doxygen
comments and can emulate its output format if you want, so it wouldn't
be a waste for you.
I just don't want to duplicate our efforts unneccessarily.
-Dave
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
