"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> Paul Speed at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In another thread on this subject it was mentioned that someone was
> > looking for a replacement to these tools. I, too, poked around a
> > little but it occurred to me that I don't even know what the specific
> > requirements for such a tool are.
> >
> > Might be worth discussion. Clearly both of the current tools have
> > their problems.
>
> Requirements?
>
> - Parse C (and optionally C++)
> - Derive documentation from JavaDoc style comments in sources
Right, that's the part where it gets wierd. Assumptions can be made,
like I assume you break down the docs based on file (in the case of
C) since there are no classes. Ages ago I used a tool that required
section "tags" in the comments. Ugly tool.
For C++, it's a little more straight forward from an organizational
standpoint.
> - Portable on any platform (no weird C++ code, Perl, Java, or ANSI-C)
> - Maybe have a decent abstraction for the generated documentation
> (kinda like the Doclet thinghie in JavaDoc, maybe even reusing that)
>
> Seems easy enough, but NOBODY ever thought about putting all those
> toghether...
I agree. If I wasn't in poor, start-up company, working my butt
off mode, I'd throw one together myself.
>
> Pier
>
> BTW, I checked out ANTLR (as someone suggested, a parser generator) and
> their GNU-C grammar, and the modification would be really huge, up to the
> point that it might be worth rewriting a new grammar, only for the JavaDOC
> style comments in source codes....
Yeah, in general, I prefer JavaCC. No tangible reasons, just warm
and fuzzy ones.
-Paul Speed
