Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When Joao and I had the chat, I wasn't quite anxious
> about the include snippet proposal. I didn't have a strong
> case against it at the time and thought that both solutions
> are orthogonal anyway. Now, it seems that you provided a
> strong case against it: that 1) Qbk needs to know something about
> the target language and each markup syntax will be different for
> different langauges. This is unwieldy.
I don't see why. It already needs special knowledge in order to
colorize comments. Why not just use the same comment detection?
> 2) I too do not like
> special tagged comments in my source code.
Well, me neither. That said, you either need to stick special
directives in your quickbook source or in your C++ source, or both.
Notation to support weaving is just one of those costs that you have
to pay in systems like this one. The only alternative is a system
with some kind of GUI controls -- which are notation in their own way,
after all, but I guess if you always edit with the same tool you can
store that data in a separate file.
> In that sense, I am not quite fond of Doxygen, in fact.
One of the nice things about Synopsis is that if you have a regular
commenting style, it can be programmed to understand the meaning of
your untagged comments. For example:
// This is the documentation
// for the function declaration
// below it
int f();
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
-------------------------------------------------------
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_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
