Boost logo

Boost :

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-11 16:33:20

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > I just imagined it would replace the most common and frequent
> > template "macros", such as {{author}} and {{library}}. The other
> > macros seemed to me like stuff that would require hand editing
> > regardless of automation (because I hadn't considered doxygen
> > parsing of the source files), and so didn't really need any
> > automation. It's the common ones that are tedious busy work.
> I'll send you my Reference section as it now stands. You may feel
> differently then.

Well, writing the documentation is definately tedious. I'm going
through some of the same pains right now, converting Boost.Threads
over, even though most of the documentation can just be cut and
pasted in the new templates. So I understand what you mean, I just
hadn't thought of taking things to the level of Doxygen like parsing
of source code.
> FWIW, Doxygen can generate XML. Somebody with some XML expertise
ought to be
> able to leverage this into extracting documentation structures.
Sadly, I'm
> not that guy.

They've gotten to the point of generating XML finally? Last I looked
they had a VERY rudimentary XML output (not suitable for translation
into actual documentation) and were under heavy redevelopment to
seperate the parser from the output engine(s). If they've finally
got this work complete what would be really interesting is for some
entrepenurial developer to add an output engine to doxygen that
produced documentation structured in a manner consistent with the
templates. Then we could leave the documentation in the code, where
it really belongs ;).

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at