[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Proposal: replace KDOC with Doxygen after 2.0 (fwd)
From:       Richard Moore <rich () ipso-facto ! freeserve ! co ! uk>
Date:       2000-10-22 17:19:33
[Download RAW message or body]



Peter Putzer wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Richard Moore wrote:
> >
> > > - Can we force people to keep their docs in the header files
> > > not in the .cpp?
> >
> > I think we should - if I'm just an applications developer, I won't have
> > the full KDE source installed anyway, but I'll have the headers, so if I
> > need to look something up, I'm much more likely to look into the headers
> > than into the actual source.
> 
> I don't quite get it. If we're talking about "tool" comments
> (KDOC/Doxygen) then neither the headers nor the implementation is
> required, only the generated documentation. If you're talking about plain
> "human readable" comments, then those already are in the .cpp files.
> 
> Besides, reading @nice KDOC @syntax is not @so easy, is @it?

Yes, or at least it's certainly no worse than Latex. In addition
there are a great many people who are used to it, because it used
by many tools these days.

Rich.

> 
> bye,
> Peter

-- 
     Richard Moore		rich@ipso-facto.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.macromedia.com/	rjmoore@macromedia.com
http://developer.kde.org/	rich@kde.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]