Op 10-2-2012 8:07, Andre Somers schreef: > Op 9-2-2012 19:13, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com schreef: >> On 09/02/2012 10:33, ext Manuel Nickschas wrote: >>> On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:36:09 ext Olivier Goffart wrote: >>>>> I am working on QDoc part-time and we have been discussing some >>>>> changes that we would like to implement to make qdoc more future >>>>> proof. I have created a short list of the things we would like to >>>>> do: http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Category:Tools::QDoc >>>>> >>>>> It comes down to: Implement a new C++ parser, make qdoc more >>>>> modular and be able to handle the Qt modules better with qdoc. >>>>> >>>>> I am wondering if anybody has any ideas about what he/she would >>>>> like qdoc to do, or how qdoc should evolve? >>>> Have you thought about using doxygen or any similar tool? >>> Or at least make QDoc be able to parse doxygen-style comments (which >>> also means it should not ignore headers, as documenting public API >>> in a header file is much more common at least outside Qt than doing >>> that in the implementation file...) >> Qt puts the documentation in the sources since it's closer to the actual >> code, and thus more likely to be maintained at the same time as the code >> is changed. If the documentation is in another location, it's far more >> likely to be "forgotten" when updates/changes to behavior is done in the >> source code. > That only goes for code that is actually *in* the cpp files. It does not > hold for enums, flags, inline functions and typedefs, nor does it hold > for the many cases where the code is actually in a private class and the > implementation contains little more than a d->doSomething(). Oh, and that is not mentioning templates either...
André _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development