Re: [Boost-users] Boost services

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost services
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-23 02:29:28

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Bo Jensen <jensen.bo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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]
>>>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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,
>>> Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  int two,
>>> Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  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? Â 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? Â 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.

Ah, you just mean the documentation, that could be done.  Boostbook
supports any language as well (it is just a documentation system), but
no doubt your other projects do not use it.  Doxygen would be useful,
but it is a vast undertaking, you really might be best to look at
boost consulting or do it yourself, most boosters see no need in it as
boostbook covers their use cases already, but would still gladly
accept patches for the documentation.

Do note, doxygen fails pretty horribly at some template work, so it
might not all come out as you fully expect.