Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] question about using Doxygen
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-21 08:12:04
> Is DOxygen useful for generating reference documenation for template meta
> programming libraries? Or is it something that "can be made to work" which
> is a whole different thing than "just works". Any one care to share their
> advice on the simplest way to get generate documentation for a library?
Personally I'm a big fan of just using quickbook.
I wouldn't use Docbook directly - much too tedious and error prone IMO.
Direct HTML sort of works, but IMO something that goes through the Docbook
toolchain has a more consistent look and feel to it.
Doxygen I'm not such a fan of - I know that others will disagree - but the
problem for me is it's too constraining, and too hard to do anything out of
the ordinary (but maybe that's true of all tools).
Have you looked at the type_traits docs - do these do what you want for a
BTW while all tools have a learning curve associated with them, I did find
quickbook very easy to get started on - and this is from someone who truly
did not want to learn "yet another tool" when it first came along!
Not sure if this helps, John.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC