From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 23:13:07
"Ken Shaw" <ken_at_[hidden]> writes:
> From: "Neal D. Becker" <nbecker_at_[hidden]>
> > Doxygen is great for documenting interfaces. It does not help with
> > any other documentation as far as I can tell.
> While doxygen is mostly used for documenting interfaces it can be used for
> kinds of documentation as well.
> You can include any sort of text at most any level of the documentation. Our
> internal XML library is extensively documented including how-to's, examples,
> known bugs, feature wish lists and to-do lists at the library, file, and
> class levels, all of which is generated by doxygen.
> I would be happy to doxygenize a smallish Boost project to demonstrate.
Doxygen has always failed miserably at understanding template code
I've generated of any complexity. Worse, it's written in Perl, which I
personally find incomprehensible ;-/.
Part of the reason I'm stumping for Synopsis is that it contains a
real C++ parser, so it doesn't fall into the same holes.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk