Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-21 16:22:59

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
> Mateusz Loskot
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:08 PM
> To: Discussion of Boost Documentation
> Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX
> 
> 2011/10/21 Mateusz Łoskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]>:
> > On 21 October 2011 12:02, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> If we have a C++ function in a header, and provide some 'concept'
> >> info in Doxygen syntax inside a
> >> C++ comment.
> >>
> >> /*!
> >>       nontype template function that just returns the template value.
> >>      \tparam size is a constant integer argument.
> >>      \returns constant integer size always.
> >>      \pre No preconditions.
> >>      \post No side effects.
> >>      \throws Never.
> >>      \warning This is not a very useful function.
> >>      \see More useful functions.
> >>  */
> >>  template <int size>
> >>  int template_parameter_size()
> >>  {
> >>    return size;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> Could we invent a better syntax?  I'm sceptical - it seems so simple.
> >
> > Doxygen is greedy (in regexp terms).
> > To make Doxygen greedy, you need to juggle comment styles what leads to mess.
> ---------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I made mistake, it should read "not greedy", of course.

So what sort of syntax would you chose instead? 

 (Bearing in mind that it is also of considerable use to the reader of the C++ header/source, so it doesn't want to be too inscrutable or terse.  Or are proposing something in a separate file - when it is less useful to the C++ reader.)

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]