Hi,
But the point of using doxygen is that it's supposed to be an improvement ... if it's really 'horrible' then we should stick with autogsdoc and just tweak the output to look like whatever we want. A big part of the point of having autogsdoc was to avoid any external dependencies so any gnustep code could guarantee it was always available to generate documentation ... if we lose that advantage then we want a big corresponding advantage somewhere else to compensate. Now if most people are familiar with doxygen and it's easy to use and produces great output, then that familiarity/ease of use could be the compensating advantage, but if it's complicated and 'horrible' then why bother?
indeed, I love that you can go into Documentation and do "make install". Besides, autogsdoc has also tex support and other outputs.
Sure it could be enhanced in some parts, like highlighting certain methods, but I'm quite satisfied with it.
Riccardo _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
