Re: [Boost-docs] question about using Doxygen

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] question about using Doxygen
From: Bo Jensen (jensen.bo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-21 08:16:57

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, John Maddock <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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
> meta-programming lib?
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-docs mailing list
> Boost-docs_at_[hidden]

Just casting my vote in here, big fan of quickbook too :-) I can
recommend using the doxygen2qbk tool, in my opinion this is the best
and most flexible way to work with doxygen. Basically you can do what
ever you want with it. I have forked it into my own style for a
commercial project, the result is very nice :-)..

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC