Re: [boost] Re: Boost Documentation [was Iterator Adaptors]

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-11 18:10:51

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>

> > > 3. Writing C++ code inside of an XML document is not easy due to the
"<"
> > > and ">" issues. I've been thinking about creating an alternative
syntax
> > > for XML that uses symbols other than "<" and ">", perhaps "@<" and
"@>". A
> > > simple translator could then convert our alternate-xml into real xml,
> > > converting "<" to "&lt;" and "@<" to "<".
>
> I think that this is only the tip of the Iceberg.  We really need to
consider
> using something like Doxygen to generate XML models from the actual code.
> Otherwise, you will be typing everything you want to document twice, or
> extracting your header file from your XML (screaming heard in the
background!).
> I use Doxygen for HTML output, but I believe there is an experimental XML
output
> available.

AFAIK there are still holes in Doxygen's parsing... and I assume there
always will be ;-)
Maybe we should explore this instead:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/8370

> Of course this barely scratches the surface of XSL, but you get the idea.
> Anyway, having spent some time using XSL, I (like Jeremy) find it ugly and
> painful to say the least.  However, it is unimportant because as long as
the
> data is structured in the first place we can decide to use XSL, C++, Perl,
> Python, our whatever to transform it....

Only this: unless someone is prepared to take this on and commit to a
short-term date for delivery of a solution, we should really be looking at
approaches which will not:
1. Require a long learning curve
2. Require much development to produce.
The rest may be of interest as theoretical ideas but if we need solutions of
this sort (and I'm not sure we do, yet), we ought to keep the practical
issues in mind.

-Dave