Feel free. I posted my opinions about all of these a long timw ago. When
I last looked at them, doxygen didn't work well at all.
Ryan
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Ben Laurie wrote:
> So, tell me again why we're using scandoc and not doxygen? Having got
> rather frustrated with scandoc, I just built the latest release of
> doxygen and pointed it at Apache. Man! The output is _beautiful_.
> Hyperlinked, colour-coded source. It understands macros (selectively),
> so it can handle the AP_DECLARE() stuff. It can even produce LaTeX
> output, and searchable source. I see a prototype for XML output, and I
> may even be persuaded to make that real.
>
> In short, it rocks, and (in comparison at least) scandoc sucks.
>
> I vote we switch immediately. And I volunteer to do all the header
> changes to make it happen. BTW, it probably isn't major to make it
> possible to use scandoc as well, but I am not volunteering to do that.
>
> BTW, if you want to try it, add a \file (or @file) directive to a header
> or two, coz otherwise it doesn't document global declarations, and you
> miss 90% of the fun.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
>
> "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
> doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
