> 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.
Yes, I recall a discussion about this in the past ;-) Refresh my memory on how synopsis can tell the difference between a comment intended as a description of a return value of a function as opposed to a description of the function without some sort of text to distinguish one from the other? Or is it just that the syntax has less cruft? > So, my question is this: has Doxygen finally become a robust > parser/comprehender of C++, or is there still good reason to pursue > Synopsis? I wish this was going to be an easy answer ;-) FWIW, the Doxygen parser has recently been rewritten. For all I know, though, this might make it more unstable. Anyway, I'm sure there are still some flaws and I think that Meta-programs will be the likely place you will find them since Doxygen tends to be utilized mostly by C++ projects writing more traditional C++. Also, since the XML output is still experimental (and according to Doug's work broken in recent releases) we might need to take that into account as well. All that said, for date_time it looks like it is going to do the job nicely. My best guess is that for MPL (and friends) things will still be a bit dicey with Doxygen... > 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. That's good to hear. It doesn't look like Synopsis has an XML ouptput formatter yet -- is that in the works? Also, as I recall last time I checked on Synopsis I had installation issues or some other difficulty -- that would have been shortly after the last committee meeting. > 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. Right, thanks for reminding me of that. > I just don't want to duplicate our efforts unneccessarily. Agreed, but I think in this case the diversity might be ok. Document generation is sufficiently complex that I'm sure that Synopsis and Doxygen will continue to have various strengths and weaknesses that might draw some users to one or the other solution. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------- 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
