Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by FredericBron

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by FredericBron
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-18 08:37:42

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:56 PM
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by
FredericBron
> 
> On 3/17/2011 10:10 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-
> >> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Maddock
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:25 AM
> >> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> >> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by
> > FredericBron
> >>
> >>> * I note that is does not use an automated system like Doxygen of
> >>> producing the reference information.
> >
> >>> I would like to see the whole library Doxygen fully commented (ask
> >>> if you think I can help) - replacing much of the current reference
text.
> >>
> >> Personally I wouldn't, sorry, but I'm still not completely sold on
> >> Doxygen
> > :-(
> >
> > Well I agree that it isn't the perfect tool.
> >
> > (Doxygen gets confused with C++ and it's picky about linking comments
> > to classes etc).
> >
> > As a user I find the current 'hand-written' alternatives deeply
> > unsatisfactory.
> >
> > The bald synopsis just isn't good enough for the user.
> >
> > The synopsis just gives the class and function name and parameters
types.
> >
> > But the user also needs to know what the parameters do, what the class
> > or function does, what preconditions, what post conditions, what side
> > effects, the "here be dragons" warnings, how to use it, examples ...
> >
> > Most of this information *has* to be hand-written - whether in plain
> > text, or in comments of some sort.
> >
> > And it should all be in one place, not scattered.
> >
> > Only the Quickbook-Doxygen reference section seems to do this -
> > *provided the actual code is fully commented*.
> 
> I use doxygen, but there is nothing keeping a quickbook author from
writing
> hand-written comments instead. So it is incorrect to claim that "Only the
> Quickbook-Doxygen reference section seems to do this".
> 
> Like you I still think doxygen is good enough since the long form of
doxygen
> comments can be anything. But some people do find doxygen difficult, and I
can
> understand that. I still think that good docs go beyond just using doxygen
and
> need explanations in topics and good organization, and sometimes this is
lacking
> in Boost docs. But John Maddock's documentation is always first-rate.

Indeed - the best - but I'm trying to encourage everyone to do as well, or
better ;-)

(I'm the nag behind AutoIndexing - to which challenge John has risen and
conquered to my satisfaction - review upcoming).

Just to be clear, I am NOT suggesting 'Standalone' Doxygen.

I am suggesting generally using the Doxygen commands:

  \class  \enum  \file \brief \details \param \tparam \pre \post \returns
\macro

and perhaps

   \example \warning \remark \throws \see \typedef \var  \version

and even  \deprecated ;-)

Note that I said 

"Only the Quickbook-Doxygen reference section seems to get it should all be
in one place, not scattered."

It's the "one place, not scattered" that I think is the key here: this is
what the Quickbook Doxygen Reference section does best.

The discipline of thinking about which are suitable types of Doxygen comment
listed above should discourage missing information (even if it means
duplication).

And the placing of documentation comments close to the code makes it easy to
spot when these are out of step.

As a user I still find that it is difficult to find even the things that I
know exist (I remember that I wrote it!).

Indexing is one aid, but it relies on the person producing the index, and in
practice I find that searching a PDF is often the only way.

Sorry to bang on about this, but too much documentation is written by
authors who know too much, but is used by those who know too little  :-)

There are some good recent examples  of improving Boost libraries in the
pipeline.

But IMO we still need to raise the bar for *user usability*.

Paul

(PS I have to admit that type_traits is not an ideal candidate for Doxygen
comments on account of the considerable skulduggery with MACROS required to
get it to work.  So I can see that the effort in hiding this might be
discouraging.)