From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-31 08:29:26
> Front/back is a little weird here: The system's front-ends parse C++
> code (and code for other languages) as input. The back-ends generate
> output. So as I understand it, the front-end capture the comments and
> the AST, while the back-ends process the comments to extract the
> appropriate information.
> OK. I wouldn't debate much anyway, since I'd be arguing with little or
> no data. I tried Doxygen once a few years ago and gave up quickly.
Right. My feeling is you gave up too easily...
> > I'm back to my original view that we should ignore doc generation.
> I'm certainly not going to ignore it, but I guess people may decide
> not to discuss it. Even if I only get really good implementation docs
> out of Synopsis, I'll be highly satisfied.
I'm very happy that you have time the time and energy to help
bootstrap Synopsis as an alternative.
> > That is, I agree with Doug what we really need is a standard form
> > that generators can create or can be created by hand and then
> > massaged appropriately for output into html, pdf, etc.
> I find the question of intermediate format uninteresting. Anything
> sufficiently rich will do, as long as I don't have to edit it
I disagree. Is it Docbook, custom XML tags, Latex? I think it is
critically important to nail this down b/c no one can reasonably
write style sheets, generation tool customizations, or anything
else without this definition.
> > Whatever. I could care less about the details of the syntax.
> I guess that's where our fundamental differences lie. I think that
> unless the syntax for the programmer is easy, accessible, and
> attractive, programmers won't use it at all.
I and many other programmers I find the doxygen syntax easy,
accessible, and just fine. You find it unattractive, but that
is purely a mostly of taste.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk