Hi, Doxygen 1.4.x has a completely overwritten scanner engine (splitting and allowing custom language parsers), which will give it a fresh wind for its sails during the 1.4.x development.
Unfortunately you might expect some incompatibilities and changes at the beginning. The first fixes are available from the CVS as doxygen-1.4.1-20050210.tar.gz. If you want to save time at the beginning you may wait a little or compile the doxygen with the line "#define COMMENTSCAN" in scanner.l commented out to get the old scanner behavior. Not sure about the XML tags, however. The XML/XSD in doxygen has been developed the "hacking", a bit wilder way, not with a primary focus on a fixed, complete and versionable XML description of commented sources. Such an iniciative would be nice and I would be willing to help. Ferda > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Doug Gregor > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 17:42 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Doxygen 1.4.1 working for anyone? > > > On Feb 10, 2005, at 12:52 PM, James Fowler wrote: > > 1) Is anyone successfully using Doxygen 1.4.x with boostbook? > > I ran into some serious problems with Doxygen 1.4.x and had > to downgrade. Grrrr. > > > , I started analyzing the > > differences in autodoc.doxygen and found that 1.4.x no longer adds > > <innerclass ...> elements to <compounddef ... type="file"> > elements, > > which doxygen2boostbook.xsl was using to find classes. > > I got this far, then got frustrated. It isn't the first time > Doxygen XML has changed out from under us :(. > > > 2) Is Doxygen recommend for use with boostbook? For > libraries which > > are not mostly templates (i.e., shouldn't push doxygen too > hard), it > > appears to be a good solution and it's worked well on previous > > projects (not using boostbook). I generally consider extracting > > documentation from the source to be a "good thing". > However, if the > > consensus is that there's a better way, or that boostbook's support > > for doxygen is problematic and may get dropped, I'd rather > be looking > > at the alternatives. (which, other than keeping the docs > separate in > > boostbook xml format, would be... what?) > > I think Doxygen is the right way to go. What really needs to > happen is that we establish a report with the Doxygen > developer(s), so that the evolution of Doxygen XML goes the > way we need it to, instead of biting us every few releases. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
