Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost services
From: Bo Jensen (jensen.bo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-23 02:20:13

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:35 AM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen <jensen.bo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Vladimir Prus
>> <vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Bo Jensen wrote:
>>>> I have a small business which uses boost quite  a lot, thanks for all
>>>> the great code. I am missing some features at the moment. Is it either
>>>> possible to donate to get some things done or does some qualified
>>>> people offer such services for a fee ? More specifically I would like
>>>> to see the doxygen integration being expanded.
>>> Could you give some more details? In particular, are you looking into
>>> Boostbook improvements?
>>> - Volodya
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Boost-users mailing list
>>> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>> It is actually very simple and would not take the right person very
>> long I think, I just don't have the time or skills to do it the right
>> way myself.
>> I need following features :
>> 1) Fix bug with array support i.e int myarray[] and not int [] array
>> (I said it was simple :-)).
> What bug is this that you are talking about? "int[] array" is correct,
> "int array[]" is not?

Well that might be me, but I have never seen notation like "int[]
arrayname" as a argument input for a function. I think it is more
common to use "int arrayname[]".

> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen <jensen.bo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 2) Have arguments output like this :
>> void somefunction(int one,
>>                           int two,
>>                           int three) and arguments should keep this
>> order in detailed list.
>> i.e not like this
>> void somefunction(int one, int two, int three) where arguments later
>> on is sorted in detailed list.
> Good for doxygen work, but definitely not standard, and doxygen can
> still decorate those in the primary description without needing to
> expand them like that.

I just think it is easier to read if the detailed argument list with
description follows the same order as the actually function. Doxygen
can do this with a parameter, but it does seem to get lost in the
conversion to boostbook.

> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen <jensen.bo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 3) Add see also support
>> 4) Add group support
> Also good doxygen things, but is there really any need?  Boostbook
> should already describe the public interface.

Yes I think they are really needed. In my case I have large amount of
functions, which can be grouped by what they do i.e "modifying",
"read/write" etc. Each function has very related functions which does
almost the same but in a different way, which can be linked with the
"see also" command. This makes it a lot easier for the reader to find
the needed information.

> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen <jensen.bo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 5) add C# support (which is supported by doxygen).
> Er, C# support?  That seems impossible as this is C++ and C++ is
> *vastly* more powerful then C#, boost uses just about everything in
> C++ that C# does not come anywhere near supporting, what support are
> you talking about?

Again, I know very little about the doxygen->boostbook conversion, I
just thought that if doxygen can make a xml file with the parsed
structures, then it is not that hard to make a function reference list
from that. In my case I have to make API's for several languages i.e
c++, c, c# and python. Would be nice to have the same kind of
documentation style.

> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at