On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 23:56:29 +0200, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 11:43:23PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:53:22 +0200, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > > > They are not really header files, so treating them as templates is more > > > consistent. This also fixes generation of Doxygen documentation, which > > > got confused by #including files within function declarations. > > > > side note: I'd really appreciate it if you could integrate doxy > > generation into the build system > > Planned, let's see if I can find some time soon. > > > so only doxy for the installed headers is generated. > > I don't think that is a good idea. While much of our doxy should not > really be doxy, restricting doxy generation to installed headers is > not the right solution. >
Care to elaborate? I think it would be an improvement. Our users are only interested in the public API, having file and symbol lists filled with internal stuff just makes it harder for them to find what they need. Libav devs AFAIK don't read doxy for internal stuff either (or does anyone?). Therefore there is no reason to generate doxy for anything other than installed headers. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
