Re: [boost] Two bugs generating docs using bjam --v2

From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-16 14:33:33

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I have been following Douglas Gregor's prescriptions on how to generate
> boostbook docs, outlined on the boost web pages. All works beautifully,
> so many thanks.

Amazing. It usually doesn't go so smoothly :)

> Example 1
>
> A header file containing:
>
> template <typename DataT>
> class process_base {
> protected:
>     process_base();
>     process_base(process_base const &);
> };
>
> results in docs:
> template<typename DataT>
> class process_base {
> public:
>   // construct/copy/destruct
>   process_base();
>   process_base(process_base const
> };
>
> Note the change from 'protected' to 'public'.

Definitely a BoostBook bug.

> Example 2.
>
> This class:
> struct pprocess_data {
>         /// Type used for file descriptors.
>         typedef int fd_t;
>
>         /// Pipe used to write to child process' stdin.
>         fd_t wpipe;
>         /// Two pipes to read from child process' stdout and stderr.
>         fd_t rpipe[2];
> };
>
> results in these docs:
> struct pprocess_data {
>   // types
>   typedef int fd_t;  // Type used for file descriptors.
>
>   // public member functions
>
>   fd_t wpipe;
>   fd_t rpipe;
> };
>
> Note that the 'rpipe' is no longer an array. Also, shouldn't the 'public
> member functions' comment be supressed?

Both of these are BoostBook bugs.

> I can supply header files and jamfile if required.

No need; I can reproduce these.

        Doug