> Nay, it was I who was unclear. How you do that is tunable. If you like > that style, you can use it. Personally, I would do something like this: > > // Brief description of function > // Long description of function > // ... > // > // Returns: Describe the return value here. > // Preconditions: precondition for the function > // Postconditions: postcondition for the function > // Throws: what it throws > // ... > > Because I want my comments to look like English ;-)
I agree that's a cleaner syntax, but I can live with what Doxygen offers. > > As for repeated work, I don't think I follow. Doug has already > > written most > > of the translation scripts for Doxygen XML output to BoostBook XML. > > For > > Synopsis you could write a backend that just outputs BoostBook > > directly. > > Or you could just use the Docbook directly and live with a slight > > reduction > > in functionality. Anyway, once it is in BoostBook all the backend > > processing is the same so I don't see that there is much overlapping > > work... > > It's the front-end processing needed to make extracting usable BoostBook > from C++ source with minimal annotation that I think will be repeated. Sorry to be dense, but I don't see why we would spend any effort here. With the current XSL scripts and undocumented C++ source you can get an inital XML snapshot from Doxygen by setting the EXTRACT_ALL so that Doxygen will extract source information -- documented or not (by default it doesn't extract undocumented source). That could then be a starting point for writing reference docs. I was presuming we could trivially do the same with Synopsis? 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
