> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 05:46:23AM -0700, Charley Bay wrote: > > I understand the Qt docs are created from a Doxygen-like "derivative", >
André Pönitz respondeth: > qdoc. > > Calling it a "Doxygen-like 'derivative'" is a bit of a stretch, > though, at least when accepting school-book style assumptions on > linear, non-reversible time. > > Andre' > > PS: See http://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/udoc/history Thanks for this -- good read. Doxygen is one-of-four offshoots from the original udoc/qdoc. My mistake. An aside, from the link: Later, Dimitri developed doxygen in a direction away from qdoc. Whereas > qdoc was aimed at generating good documentation with the least possible > effort, doxygen was aimed at generating the best possible documentation for > a given level of effort. That may sound similar, but the difference is > profound. Doxygen will produce something even if there are *no* documentation > blocks in the source; udoc will just spew helpful > messages<http://aox.org/udoc/errors> in > that case. > At Trolltech, we never used doxygen. <snip>, I *totally* understand his assertion on that distinction. We use lots of Doxygen, but I must admit that I prefer the qdoc approach. Also from the article, for the curious: After a while, Trolltech grew to a point where we could think about > spending time on a new, maintainable, version of qdoc. Finally Jasmin > Blanchette did so in C++ when he started at Trolltech. His version was a > great deal better than my perl monster. It was a relief to finally kill > that perl. (Thanks for the correction.) --charley
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
