Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-04 23:15:53

on Tue Oct 04 2011, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote:

> On 03/10/11 15:04, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> 
>
>> on Sun Oct 02 2011, Edward Diener <eldiener-AT-tropicsoft.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If concepts had been voted into C++0x, then no doubt doxygen would
>>> have considered documenting it as a C++ construct.
>>>
>>> Conversely there is no limit in doxygen to documenting whatever you
>>> want as free-from doxygen documentation and so you could document
>>> concepts' in doxygen if you wanted to do so in whatever format you
>>> like. There are a number of techniques for this but probably the
>>> easiest is to just add such documentation to a @file documentation,
>>> and it will show up in the final output.
>> 
>> But what's the advantage in that over, say, just using quickbook,
>> boostbook, or any of the other non-automatic tools for that part of the
>> documentation?
>
> One of important Doxygen features is it extracts and interlinks C++
> names/symbols (with or without attached documentation).
> BoostBook could use this interlinking capability and generate the
> relations we lack currently:
> - concepts
> - models
> - template parameters to concepts as type requirements
>
> I think this interlinking is one of most important features that is
> missing from the docs in current form.

Although, I must say, it has always seemed to me that those kinds of
links could be set up mostly-automatically by any tool, with very little
markup of any kind needed to make them work.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com