Am Samstag, 17. März 2007 schrieb Per Inge Mathisen: > On 3/17/07, Major F. Tropper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > do you want doxygen comments for functions done in the .h file or in the > > .c file? > > ... > > > afraid that comments in .h file really soon be out of > > date because no look at the .h comment while chaging the behavior of a > > function. > > I agree. Sounds sensible.
I did DoxyComments in the header before, because that way they are easily accessible when you have a look at the declaration. No need to search for the definition. (Which is usualy at line 3276 in an ugly formated code file not ordered like the header is and thus more difficult to find than in a small header.) Additionaly to that, if you would want to use the header as an API definition for a library and thus install only the header and not the sourcecode, you have lost the comments. That were my thoughts when I did it the other way. But if documentation would be widely present you could of course create the doxydocs and use them instead of the headers. This seems also to be the way Trolltech does it with Qt, so it can't be a big problem. (Qt is documented very good, though.) So you got my ok, too. --Dennis
pgpr7FdFqq7s7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
