From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-11 19:23:20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
> > AFAIK there are still holes in Doxygen's parsing... and I assume there
> > always will be ;-)
> This claim has been made on this list before and I consider it bogus since
> have been able to build documentation for STLport, Boost, and a huge
> other C++ code. There are holes in plenty of actual C++ compiler's
> too...that doesn't stop us from using them.
Sure, you can build something, but is it right?
For examples, just go to the Doxygen mailing list, where you may find, e.g.,
a complaint about omitted specializations.
> > Maybe we should explore this instead:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/8370
> Looks like it has potential. Has anyone used 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
> > 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
> > this sort (and I'm not sure we do, yet), we ought to keep the practical
> > issues in mind.
> Given these criteria we should stick with HTML....
Not being an XML expert, it seems to me that you are right, at least for the
time being. Maybe someone else has other information, though. I don't mean
to discourage progress.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk