As Brad says, doxygen generation is trivial, and not difficult to set up. It is completely automated at Rogue Wave.
-----Original Message----- From: Eric Lemings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Doxygen possible in STDCXX? > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Doxygen possible in STDCXX? > > Eric Lemings wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Martin Sebor > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:52 AM > >> To: Eric Lemings > >> Cc: Marc Betz > >> Subject: Re: Doxygen possible in STDCXX? > >> > [...] > > I would suggest using the printf directives (STDCXX-871) but there's > > no C++ code (or not enough) related to that component to use as a > > proof-of-concept. > > I don't see why the language would matter. The documentation will look > the same regardless if rw_printf() is implemented in C or in assembly. Well to analyze potential risk associated with translating C++ -- the documented vs. implemented C++ function signatures that Marc alluded to for example. > ... > > My feeling is that unless we set up an infrastructure to automatically > generate and publish the generate docs it's going to hard to get > motivated to go to the trouble of adding Doxygen-style comments even > in the test driver. Infrastructure? What infrastructure? All that's needed is Doxygen and a Doxyfile and even the latter is optional... technically at least. Brad.
