On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 04:29:33PM -0500, Michael Jennings wrote: > On Friday, 13 February 2004, at 21:50:53 (+0100), > Vincent Torri wrote: > > > As i find that doxygen makes awful docs and as i find the api doc of > > gtk clean and efficient, i tried to understand how gtk-doc works. > > In my opinion, the exact opposite is true.
I would have to agree about the GTK docs. I never found them to be very easy to use beyond the most trivial things. The new ones look slightly better, but if you don't know the name of a specific widget, it can be a pain to track down the functionality you want. > > The main "problem" is that gtk-doc comments are different from the > > doxygen comments. So all the comments in your libs should be > > re-written (or gtk-doc may be hacked, perhaps). You can use a lisp > > mode in emacs to insert easily the comments. > > I doubt that will happen. Doxygen supports the industry-standard > Javadoc format. If gtk-doc does not, it should, and it's not likely > to be used. > > Michael Agreed. And related to your other message. I like the way doxygen does class heirarchies, we just need a better way to apply them to structs. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Nathan Ingersoll \\ Computer Systems & Network Coordinator | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ http://www.ruralcenter.org | | http://ningerso.atmos.org/ \\ Rural Health Resource Center | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
