Re: [Boost-users] Boost services

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost services
From: Bo Jensen (jensen.bo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-23 02:39:13

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:29 AM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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,
>>>>                           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.
>
> 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.

Thanks for your input.

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

I have very simple styled API's more twisted towards c and no
templates in the actually API.  Doxygen seem to do correctly on my
API's.

> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users