Re: Boost Documentation Template questions

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 
style
> > 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