On 2013-06-08 5:29 AM, "S Page" <sp...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Ori is pointing out that doxygen (and jsduck) require needless
> verbiage. The tools aren't smart enough to infer obvious information from
> source on their own (or maybe they are but you're not sure and you see
> other comments using these symbols so you copy and paste), so you wind up
> repeating information in "doc generation syntax".
>
> And to what end? I view doxygen as an external test that we're being
> consistent in comments (quick, is it @param String $mystr or @param
$myStr
> {string} ?) but I never actually refer to the generated output. Does
> anyone? Until someone builds a browser bridge that automatically scrolls
> the right HTML into view as you move around in your editor and
> automatically regenerates the HTML as you type, I don't see my habits
> changing.
>
> If web search engines could understand the generated documentation and
> ranked it higher in search results it would be more useful and used more.
Thank you for that email Ori. It was beautiful.
To answer S's question - I mostly look at the code, but I do use the html
docs occasionally. I used them quite extensively when I was a newbie first
learning about mediawiki. I also regularly link to them when people in irc
say things like "how do I do x".
-bawolff
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
