Can you create a small  example to show the short comings?

Best Regards,


On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Hambley, Matthew <> wrote:

> My original attempt to send this overtook my joining the mailing list so
> it is lost in limbo somewhere.
> Doxygen's approach to type-bound procedures in Fortran seems a little
> problematic. I've looked through my Doxyfile but can't see anything obvious
> which I should be changing but haven't.
> Let me elucidate:
> There are two places where one could put the documentation. Along with the
> declaration of the procedure, in the type definition. Alternatively it
> could go with the definition in the module body.
> Currently Doxygen seems to expect it to accompany declaration and ignores
> anything provided with definition.
> There are a number of issues with this.
> The calling signature of the procedure is not described in the declaration
> so Doxygen complains that you have @param clauses for non-existent
> arguments. Of course they do exist, just down in the definition.
> If you have a "generic" procedure, one which maps to a number of different
> implementations, i.e. overloaded, It can not be sensibly documented at
> declaration as there are multiple procedures but only one comment block.
> The upshot of all this is that the support for documentation seems to be
> in the wrong place. It would seem to make more sense for it to be with the
> procedure definition in the module body rather than in the module header in
> the type definition.
> Am I missing something? Is there already a way to get the behaviour I
> want? Or is this a shortcoming in the tool?
> --
> Matthew Hambley
>   Scientific Software Engineer
>   Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
Doxygen-users mailing list

Reply via email to