On 17.03.2010, at 22:01, manolo gouy wrote: >>>> 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.
Oh, I see. We'd need to copy all docs to the header, right? Annoying :-( _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
