From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-11 19:47:27
> Sure, you can build something, but is it right?
Whatever. There may be flaws, but from my view it is darn good. Clearly you
see the glass is half empty and I see it as half full :)
Anyway, I don't care about the tool selection. The point that was lost was that
no one should have to suffer the pain of having to try and write C++ in XML and
then extract code. It has to go the other way.
> For examples, just go to the Doxygen mailing list, where you may find, e.g.,
> a complaint about omitted specializations.
I didn't say it was perfect, just not fatally flawed. (By the way there was a
fix in 1.1.1 for template specializations although I'm not sure that's the bug
you are complaining about). Your point was that the parsing will always be
flawed and I just disagree because it does a good job on all sorts of C++ now
and it is actively maintained.
Anyway, we are hopelessly off topic and Paul still can't print the docs :(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk