From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-04-22 15:45:28
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 17:00, Hans Dembinski via Boost
> > On 22. Apr 2020, at 14:55, Paul A Bristow via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > +1 Doxygen Syntax comments are THE standard way of describing expected code
> > performance.
> > Doxygen now understands C++ (using the Clang compiler so it really does ).
> > What the parameters and template parameters do, what items are updated, what is
> > returned, and of course, what a function does.
> > (The magic of how and why may be an added bonus).
> > Authors/documenters have to write this by hand - not just feed the code into
> > Doxygen! (which is the delusion that many suffer from).
> > Quickbook and other tools can process this info (because it has a known
> > standard-ish syntax) and display it nicely.
> I wish it was so.
> There are other issues.
> I have a Python script that does post-processing on the XML
Asio developed XSLT,
Beast developed XSLT,
Geometry initially developed XSLT, but switched to bespoke XML
and these are not trivial solutions at all.
Authors of new libraries will look at these and within 5 minutes
decide to develop their own solution, I bet.
Does that show the weakness of Doxygen?
To me it somewhat does and the lack of Boost common solution
is a motivation to avoid Doxygen.
It may be a personal preference, but I very much dislike the (freedom of)
variety of look & feel of documentation of Boost libraries.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk