Subject: [ggl] [doc] Index template parameters for get/set accessors?
From: Barend Gehrels (Barend.Gehrels)
Date: 2010-03-09 03:57:01
> I see. It is confusing because the prototype of the function does not
> specify all the parameters which are documented in that place,
> so I got suspicious something is wrong.
I agree, it is better to solve it properly.
>> I'm curious if shuffling will solve it in the new approach, because
>> (IIRC) Doxygen was not too happy with this construction of two overloads
>> with different template parameters.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Doxygen was not happy", but in the new
> approach we're parsing XML output directly and on our own, using XSLT,
> so we have access to all details. Meaning, I'm trying to generate
> separate page per a function overload.
The new approach sounds very good.
But do you really generate a page per function overload? For this
specific situation, I agree. However, for e.g. the area algorithm,
having two overloads, one with a strategy and one without, is it not
cleaner to present them together? Or "intersection" and
"intersection_inserter"? Or the overloads in different namespaces which
we will get?
However, I understand that this will have some technical implications.
> Thus, I think it is better to document actual parameters of given
> function next to that function, instead of manually outsmart Doxygen.
> Otherwise, a separate HTML page for particular overloaded version of a
> function will present irrelevant information.
> Nevertheless, let's not make any cross-project changes to the comments
> until I finish crafting XSL sheet and confirm any changes are needed at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net