On November 23, 2002 09:55 am, Matthew Vanecek wrote: > On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 05:54, Christian Stimming wrote: > > Agreed too. If somebody asks, I'd vote for doxygen. > > Doxygen looks good to me, and probably can generate a wider range of > output than javadoc. I know there's other stuff out there, but if > everyone agrees, why don't we standardize on doxygen? Silence is > concurrence...
I think we will. I am willing to create a doxygen configuration (and edit the gnucash HACKING file to add comment style) and get it to work in our source tree, but I'll need someone to get it working into the build system smoothly. The header vs source debate is easily solved in doxygen. You put a /brief doxygen comment above the function declaration in the header, which is a single sentense describing the function. That sentense in unlikely to change very much over time. In the source, for the same function, you write the detailled description and usage, parameters and return value. This is what is likely to change over time. That way there is enough doc in the header to have a basic idea of what the function does, and if the developer wants more info, he can just fire up his web browser and look at the cross referenced doxygen doc. _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
