On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:30:58 +0200, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:27:06PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes:
> > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 08:47:22PM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote:
> > >> On 2012-08-11 20:39:06 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:51:33AM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote:
> > >> > > On 2012-08-09 03:31:27 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > >> > > > The comments in non-library code never apply to code that is used
> > >> > > > outside of the file and thus never need to be in Doxygen format.
> > >> > > > --- a/Doxyfile
> > >> > > > +++ b/Doxyfile
> > >> > > > @@ -616,7 +616,11 @@ RECURSIVE              = YES
> > >> > > >  # excluded from the INPUT source files. This way you can easily 
> > >> > > > exclude a
> > >> > > >  # subdirectory from a directory tree whose root is specified with 
> > >> > > > the INPUT tag.
> > >> > > >  
> > >> > > > -EXCLUDE                =
> > >> > > > +EXCLUDE                = compat                                   
> > >> > > >       \
> > >> > > > +                         doc                                      
> > >> > > >       \
> > >> > > > +                         presets                                  
> > >> > > >       \
> > >> > > > +                         tests                                    
> > >> > > >       \
> > >> > > > +                         tools                                    
> > >> > > >       \
> > >> > > 
> > >> > > is there anything in '.' which would have useful Doxygen comments?
> > >> > > Specifying the library dirs explicitly as search path makes imho more
> > >> > > sense than excluding everything else.
> > >> > 
> > >> > avconv.c
> > >> > avconv_filter.c
> > >> > avconv.h
> > >> > avconv_opt.c
> > >> > avplay.c
> > >> > avserver.c
> > >> > cmdutils.c
> > >> > cmdutils.h
> > >> 
> > >> and which useful doxygen comments have those files? I've only looked at
> > >> avconv.c and couldn't spot any.
> > >
> > > Look at cmdutils.h, it is quite extensively documented.
> > 
> > Perhaps, but it's of no interest to API users.
> 
> Somebody added Doxygen there for a reason; it would be silly not to
> extract it.  If you believe otherwise, send a patch to remove the
> Doxygen comments from that file.
> 
> Can we leave the pros and cons of external/internal API documentation
> out of the implementation of this patch?  Doxygen generation will
> remain broken until this patch is applied.
> 

Can you stop ignoring me when I attempt to start a discussion about this?
Doxygen generation will remain broken until this issue is fixed, but it can be
fixed through other ways than this.

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to