> >> We have now basically two names for each graphics function, e.g., > >> fl_rect() and Fl_Device::rect() > >> and only one (generally, but not always, the second) is documented, > >> so this creates a warning for the undocumented one. > >> I believe the solution would be to hide from Doxygen the name > >> Fl_Device::<i>graphics_function</i>() because we don't want > >> end-users to use it, and instead document the > >> <i>fl_graphics_function</i>() name. > >>=20 > >> Does that sound correct ? > >=20 > > Yes, that sounds correct. But that would involve much moving of > > Doxygen docs to the right places. And maybe we should consider > > to use Matt's proposal \internal (or similar, don't remember > > exactly) to hide internals rather than using #if[n]def FL_DOXYGEN. > > I suggest that we keep the documentation of the fl_xxx calls as they = > are. But Fl_Device and all its methods should be documented nevertheless = > (and references (\see) the corresponding fl_xxx function), because a = > developer may want to write a new Fl_Device for some exotic embedded = > display. > > Marking the Fl_Device class members \internal may be a good idea. > > - Matthias= >
The trouble is that the documentation is in the .cxx files next to what used to be the fl_xxx() functions. Most (but not all) of these are now the Fl_Device::xxx() functions. Thus, most of fl_xxx() functions are now undocumented. _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
