Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] question about using Doxygen
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-21 17:06:48
John Maddock wrote:
> Not sure if this helps, John.
Thanks to everyone for their feedback. I find it very helpful. Since
posting the question
I found the section "about the documentation" in the geometry library which
is helpful also. I did peruse the document areas of different libraries and
found wide variation - rather than any sort of consensus - hence my
Edward Diener wrote:
> On 6/20/2011 7:19 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> contains this text
>> Documenting the Reference section following the C++ standard style
>> Doxygen provides a certain number of tags that allows to generate a
>> clean documentation, but it would be great if all the Boost
>> libraries document its Reference section following the C++ standard
> What is the "C++ standard style" ?
I'm assuming that this means style similar to the SGI documentation
for stl libraries. I was sort of expecting to find some sort of
"form filling" approach or something "automatically" generated
ala Doxygen. It's interesting to me (but not surprising) that their
is a wide difference of opinion as to the utility of Doxygen in our
context. I'm quite intrigued by this.
My current (toy) project has not classes per se - it's all concepts
a la fusion. So I don't see a good place where something like Doxygen
fits in. Unless ....
I've created Concepts using BoostConceptLibrary for all the concepts
I use. Now it's occuring to me that perhaps Doxygen comments might
best be applied to these concept checking classes. They're templates -
but I don't see that this should be an insurmountable problem.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:41 UTC