HI Bjorn,
On 2 September 2014 07:57, Björn Blissing <[email protected]> wrote: > > gwaldron wrote: > > Robert, > > No, unfortunately RTD is not an alternative to doxygen. It only renders > your RST files into HTML, PDF etc. Such an integration is a good idea > though, and I've heard people ask for it. I'll have to see if anyone's > working on that. > > > There is a plugin to Sphinx (the generator backend of RTD) which is called > Breathe. Breathe can read doxygen comments and output Sphinx formatted code: > http://github.com/michaeljones/breathe > Thanks for the link. Having all these little titbits from different users in a discussion shows the value of community :-) -- In my idea world we'd have documentation inline with source (doxygen style) linking with a two way link with general discussion/higher level documentation so when is browsing the documentation one can jump between the two seamlessly. So for discussion could do something like mirror the structure of the OSG as it stands: OpenSceneGraph/include/osg etc. OpenSceneGraoh/src/osg etc. OpenSceneGraph/doc/osg etc. Then have a Cmake script generate the RST files and place them in the doc directories. We'd then want the hand written RST files to sit alongside these in some manner. Would the hand written ones sit alongside the automatically generated ones or in a separate directory? If you had them sitting alongside each other then naming would be the way to different and just have a naming convention that make it clear which is which. Obviously one would check in the hand written RST files, but would you check in the automatically generated ones as well? Currently we don't check in the doxygen generated docs. If one wanted to have RTD generate the HTML docs then one would need both together at the same time. Thoughts everyone? Robert.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
